This website is devoted to the extraordinary mystics and visionaries of the Church, especially those who are lesser known, such as St Gemma Galgani, Blessed Alexandrina da Costa, Sr Consolata Betrone, Therese Neumann, Rev. Pere Lamy, Gabrielle Bossis, Josefa Menendez, Marthe Robin, Servant of God Louise Lateau, Blessed Anna Maria Taigi, Sister Mary of the Holy Trinity, Sister Maria Antonia and others. The author endeavors always to be in communion with the Catholic Church and its teachings.

The Archdiocese of Denver's statement concerning Charlie JohnstonArchbishop Samuel J. Aquila of Denver has decided to strongly advise the faithful to exercise prudence and caution in regards to Mr. Charlie Johnston’s alleged divine visions and messages.

March 7, 2016, Denver, Colorado
As published today on the Archdiocese of Denver website, His Excellency Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila has issued a statement concerning the popular purported Catholic prophet, Mr. Charles Johnston.

In October 2015, the Archbishop formed a panel of three diocesan priests--two theologians and a canonist- to investigate the prophetic mission and message of Mr. Charles ("Charlie") Johnston. The team met with Charlie on a few occasions, during which they interviewed him on a variety of matters pertaining to the mission to which he believes God has called him to. For his part, Charlie Johnston actively participated in the inquiry in a spirit of openness and obedience to the Church.

A significant part of the investigation centered around the archives of Charlie's writings, particularly those of his letters to his three priest spiritual directors for approximately the past 18 years, along with his current writings that are published on his blog, charliej373.wordpress.com. Additionally, they studied a few of the videos of Charlie's public conferences, which were given free of charge around the country last summer (2015).

To summarise the statement from the Archdiocese, Archbishop Aquila's decision at this point is essentially a wait and see approach while "advising the faithful to exercise prudence and caution in regards to Mr. Charlie Johnston’s alleged divine visions and messages."

Not an approved speaker for the Archdiocese of Denver
Additionally, the official statement declares that "Mr. Johnston will also not be approved as a speaker in the Archdiocese of Denver."One must recognize however that “...not be approved as a speaker for the Archdiocese” is not in any way a negative judgment. In the comments section of the article I wrote about Charlie Johnston awhile back there have been a couple of individuals referencing the "...not be approved as a speaker in the Archdiocese” statement in an attempt to show that Charlie Johnston has somehow received a negative judgment from the Archdiocese-- This is NOT the case. What the "...not be approved as a speaker" statement means is that Charlie has not sought, or received, official approval to speak within the Archdiocese, and that there is currently no intention to grant approval. In most, if not all, Dioceses across the country, one must apply—and receive-- official approval as a speaker before one is permitted to give speaking engagements or conferences in any of the Catholic churches within the Diocese, particularly if one is to be speaking on matters of faith or morals. This prior approval measure is to protect the faithful from unqualified or disingenuous speakers. If the Archbishop was to grant approval for Charlie to speak within the Archdiocese, it would be interpreted as a implicit approval of his private revelations, and such is not in keeping with the cautionary approach related in today's Statement from the Archdiocese. It is important to note here also that Archbishop Aquila has not restricted Charlie in any way, most especially from speaking publicly about his purported private revelations and prophetic messages, either in conferences or on his blog. He therefore remains free to speak publicly in public venues on private property within the Archdiocese of Denver and abroad--just not in Catholic churches within the Archdiocese. For his part, out of respect for the Archbishop, up to this point Charlie has only conducted private meetings in the Denver area, and one would suspect he will likely continue to do so, as opposed to the public conferences he has given outside of the Archdiocese.

The author visiting with Charlie Johnston in July, 2015

A brief biography of Charlie Johnston and his purported prophetic mission and message--The great “Storm” and subsequent “Rescue” that Charlie believes will soon envelop all of humanityCharles (or “Charlie”) Johnston is a 60 year old Roman Catholic layman living in Denver, CO. Throughout his varied career he worked for a time as a newspaper editor, a radio talk show host, and also a political campaign manager. Charlie suffered a severe neurological event at 9:03AM on Good Friday, 2003, which still affects him physically to this day. Although suffering from this painful nerve damage, feeling called to do so by God he walked 3,200 miles across the country, from Feb. 11, 2011 to Aug. 21, 2012, sleeping in the woods, meeting people and praying as he went.He claims that since his early childhood he has been frequently visited by Jesus, Mary and especially the Archangel Gabriel, whom he often simply calls “My angel”. The sole reason for these alleged heavenly visits purportedly has been-- and is--to inform and prepare the world for a purported great worldwide “Storm” which, according to the visitors, will bring a grave series of catastrophic events that will encompass all of humanity.

Charlie states that this great “Storm” consists of a worldwide economic collapse, resulting in the toppling of governments around the world, along with a series of wars; the first war being “…the confrontation with, and fall of political Islam”, followed by a “...confrontation between the Judeo-Christian world and the current government of China.”To summarize Charlie's prophesies for the "Storm", he essentially predicts a crippling worldwide economic collapse resulting in societal chaos and strife in an unprecedented scale, bringing with it serious disruptions in all areas of society, including technology etc, along with a war between China and the rest of the Judeo-Christian world which all together will, according to Charlie, bring humanity to a point wherein most everyone around the globe will lose hope.However, in late 2017, Charlie prophesizes a miraculous "Rescue" through the direct intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which according to Charlie, all of humanity will witness and personally experience. This predicted miraculous Rescue will put an immediate end to the Storm, and humanity thus renewed will begin rebuilding its governments and societies. Time will very soon tell whether Charlie's private revelations are authentic, or notAlong with the prophesies concerning the Storm and the subsequent Rescue in late 2017, Charlie has also stated that President Obama will not finish his term as president, and that the next leader of the USA will not be elected, that is, he will not come through the normal political process; he has stated that there will probably be no presidential election, but if there is, it will be irrelevant (in other words, even if someone is formally elected, according to Charlie there will definitely be no swearing in ceremony for that elected person come January 20, 2017). Given the current presidential election and "swearing in" timeline, one can assume therefore that the predicted Storm would have to be underway before the end of this year. Ultimately therefore, time will very soon tell whether Charlie's revelations are authentic, or not. Meantime, Archbishop Aquila has wisely taken the wait and see approach, while urging caution and prudence concerning Charlie's private revelations. Since up to this point no one has apparently found any serious doctrinal errors in Charlie's writings or statements, a wait and see or "neutral" approach is in fact really the best choice, at least in this writers opinion. The prophesised events, or lack of events, will soon reveal the truth, one way or the other. One would also do well to keep in mind the part of the Archdiocese statement that says: "As has been demonstrated with other alleged apparitions, the danger exists of people placing greater faith in a prediction than in Christ’s words and promises."Those interested in reading more info about Charlie Johnston and his purported prophetic message and mission can read the article I wrote last year entitled "Charles Johnston and the upcoming Storm -An alleged prophet with a critically important message for humanity". As with the original article, I file this article also under the "We report, you discern" principle.
_______________"Many continue to think that the Storm is God’s punishment of us. IT IS NOT. Get that out of your head. The Storm is what we have brought on ourselves. It is an evil that is entirely wrought by our hands. God has nothing to do with it. If you don’t firmly get that right, you will get almost everything else wrong. The great evil is that we have convinced ourselves that we are sufficient to ourselves, that we are masters of our destiny with no need for God, whatsoever""But, God has a plan for us and for our reclamation. He never leaves us bereft. Acknowledge God; take the next right step; and be a sign of hope to those around you, knowing that God is always close at hand." -Charlie Johnston
______________

Charlie Johnston in 2015 during FOCUS TV interview

Additional information: (March 10, 2016) -A brief timeline of predicted events that should prove useful for discernment in the coming months.The eight public prophesies that have purportedly been given to Charlie
In his article entitled "Go Forth", Charlie reveals eight worldwide events that he believes are to occur, as allegedly related to him by his heavenly visitors.
He states: "I only have eight public prophecies that I insist on. Only the visible, miraculous Rescue by Our Lady, the Immaculate Conception in late 2017, is time sensitive. Five things must happen between now and the Rescue, but can happen at any time during that period. They are:– The continued toppling of governments throughout the world, including that of the U.S. The toppling of a government does not mean the nation shall fall. – The confrontation with and fall of political Islam. – The mass conversion of most Muslims – The confrontation between the Judeo-Christian world and the current government of China. – The alliance between Russia and the U.S. to lead the Judeo-Christian world to endure the confrontation with China. -Then, after the 5 things above comes the miraculous "Rescue" through the Immaculate Heart of Mary sometime in late 2017.
It is important to note in the information above that Charlie does not speak here of the prophesy concerning Obama not completing his term, and how the next leader of the USA will not come from the result of the usual political process (election). Yet we know for a fact that this information also is a prophesy that comes from his "visitations", which I will show in the info below. Both on his website and also in at least two videotaped conferences (Birmingham video from 46:00-50:00, and also the Santa Maria Vineyard video at 1:23:30) Charlie has emphatically stated that President Obama will not complete his 2nd term as President, and that the next leader will NOT come from the normal political process. He stated that while it is possible that there could be an election, whoever the person that will be nominated will not be sworn in on January 20, 2017. Specifically, on his website he stated:

August 2, 2015 at 9:30 pm
Donette, I said bluntly on the Birmingham Video that President Obama will not finish his term. I said that he would be eledted [elected] before he received the nomination to my priests, that he would lead us into the fullness of the Storm, that he would leave office in chaos and disgrace before his term was finished, and would live to convert in the end.

"I have often said there will be no presidential election this year. Actually, there are some narrow circumstances in which there could be, but the results would be irrelevant. What I was told was that President Obama would not finish his term and that our next stable national leader will not come from the election process. You could have an explosion of events after an election and before an inauguration. You could have Obama declare a national emergency, cancel elections, extend his term and then depart before the extension was up. The most likely scenario is that everything will be up in the air before election, but there are narrow circumstances where that may not be." -(emphasis is mine)

And so, barring any additional statements from the Archdiocese of Denver, the summary above can be used to determine the authenticity of Charlie's prophesies, when the time-frame of the predicted events comes.

Hypothetically speaking, I personally feel that even if all of the events listed above leading up to the "Rescue" were to in fact occur, I believe that only the Rescue itself would ultimately confirm Charlie's prophetic mission and message. In other words, while the things that are predicted to occur during the "Storm", like the economic collapse and the toppling of governments, the confrontations with political Islam and then China, the alliance with Russia etc. if they actually do occur, then these signs would certainly weigh very, very heavily in Charlie's favor.

Yet ultimately however I believe that authenticity rests solely on the prophesised miraculous worldwide "Rescue" through the Immaculate Heart of Mary in late 2017. This event, should it occur, coupled with the fulfillment of the other events Charlie has predicted during the Storm, would give indisputable evidence of the authenticity of Charlie's prophetic mission in my opinion, and I could only assume such would be the opinion of most everyone else. It would constitute a heavenly confirmation.

And so, it seems to me that there are essentially two outcomes that can occur, each with their own timeline. The first outcome would be that of one or more failed predictions, and the second outcome would be the fulfillment of all (or most?) of the predictions pertaining to the Storm, and culminating in the miraculous Rescue. So for now, we watch, wait and pray.

149 comments:

Steve
said...

Even if Charlie were an approved speaker in the Archdiocese of Denver I'm not sure that would add any weight to the validity of his messages. Consider that not only was Fr. Stefano Gobbi an approved speaker in Archdioceses all over the world, but his messages had multiple Imprimaturs, and he even said Mass with Pope St. John Paul II in the Pope's private chapel. Yet Fr. Gobbi's prophecies of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart in 1998 never materialized.

Steve, respectfully, an approval to speak within the confines of Church property in the Archdiocese of Denver, while technically not adding weight to the messages per se, would definitely be a significant local imprimatur, one which Charlie's followers would absolutely claim as a boast of legitimacy in general terms. As well, newcomers to any given talk given by Charlie would have every expectation of, or at least could be expected to infer (and not irrationally), some level of authenticity, if that talk were given at an Archdiocesan venue. It matters.

As well, other Catholic media would most assuredly be more eager than otherwise to give Charlie exposure if he were an approved speaker within the Archdiocese.

As for your claim Glenn that "not an approved speaker does not mean unapproved" - well, and I say this charitably, yes it does. Are you really claiming that if Charlie would seek approval to speak in the Denver area on Church property that the Archbishop would actually entertain the idea with an open mind in some de novo fashion? If that were true, there would be no need at all to even issue the statement that Charlie is not an approved speaker in the Archdiocese. And if it does not mean unapproved, then why the need for the last paragraph of the statement, which anticipates disappointment among Charlie's supporters and provides the caution from Matthew 24:36? The statement's tone when read as a whole could not be more clear as a communication to both Charlie and his followers. Charlie is not an approved speaker, so don't come to us to ask for any such approval.

The timing of this statement is also interesting, about one week prior to the Archbishop's "Jericho" march around the abortion facility, at which Charlie will be in attendance.

Hi Jackisback,Thanks for your comments. I would like to point out that the "Jericho walk" around the Denver Planned Parenthood facility in Denver led by Archbishop Aquila actually took place this past Saturday, March 5th.

As for myself, I think that the Archdiocese Statement is perfectly balanced; it strongly urges caution and prudence, yet refrains from condemning without just cause, very wisely taking a wait and see approach. In short, I perceive it as being neutral, neither approving nor condemning, while urging the importance of putting Christ's promises always in the forefront.

Thanks again for your comments and may God bless you and yur loved ones,Glenn Dallaire

On March 1, 2016, officials from the Archdiocese of Denver met with Mr. Charlie Johnston to inform him of the findings of a preliminary investigation into his writings and speeches. A special commission composed of two theologians and a canonist reviewed material from his blog, videos of presentations from various parts of the country, and an archive of writings detailing Mr. Johnston’s alleged visions as far back as 1998.

Mr. Johnston claims to have received both visions and messages from the Blessed Mother, the Archangel Gabriel and other saints since he was young. According to Mr. Johnston, the purpose of these visits was to train him to serve as a messenger for God and strengthen the faithful, particularly during a time of economic and moral upheaval, which he refers to as “The Storm.”

In his writings and in person, Mr. Johnston also insists that the “prophetic” aspects of his message are not essential and should not be the focus of those who follow him. However, it appears that those same predictions are what attract new followers to his message and give them a sense of urgency and zeal.

After hearing concerns and inquiries from Catholics throughout the United States and within the Archdiocese of Denver itself, Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila decided to launch a preliminary investigation to advise him on the content of Mr. Johnston’s writings and presentations. It should be noted that the commission’s mandate did not include determining whether Mr. Johnston’s messages are divine in origin.

After reviewing the commission’s findings and in keeping with his pastoral office, Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila of Denver has decided to strongly advise the faithful to exercise prudence and caution in regards to Mr. Charlie Johnston’s alleged divine visions and messages. As has been demonstrated with other alleged apparitions, the danger exists of people placing greater faith in a prediction than in Christ’s words and promises.

For these reasons, Mr. Johnston will also not be approved as a speaker in the Archdiocese of Denver.

For those who are disappointed by this finding, the archdiocese encourages them to seek their security in Jesus Christ, the sacraments, and the Scriptures. The faithful should also remember Christ’s words: “But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mt. 24:36).

Personally I just find that the summation of Charlie's "prophecies" simply include what so many have been alerting people to now for decades. It's been obvious to people such as Mark Mallett for instance that we've been in a "storm" for quite some time and that most can see that the world is evolving into now a super "storm" and awaiting the Warning (which btw Charlie does not accept as happening as described by exact visions/messages such as from St. Faustina herself or from Garabandal as well as other approved mystics throughout Church history....says that mystics have just been wrong in their personal interpretations so often and that we should not expect any grand happening but that things will just go along in a more gradual manner...like then not to expect any great worldwide Illumination of Conscience in the manner given through such mystics and saints). And also most who follow Fatima already expect something great to happen in the 100th year anniversary of Fatima, 2017, since then also the 100 year period given to Satan (Leo XIII vision) to try and destroy the Church/faithful (Russian Communism) would end as well, as it began with the Bolshevik revolution that immediately followed the last apparition at Fatima.

And when people simply wish to get a bit more specific with Charlie he rather chastises them for even inquiring and lectures that they are setting up "straw men", etc. I find him often just projecting what he does on to others. Another red flag for me as well is that those regular commenters/followers seem to never question anything and cover him for any mistakes; like kind of "groupies" or "fans" w/o reason. And they seem rather condescending to those who simply ask very logical questions but who get twisted by Charlie to seem like they are "vain" (his word) for doing so. Those who add more than just applause simply do not return to comment further rather than be purposefully misinterpreted.

I personally have been taking a "wait and see" approach to Charlie. He comes across as a very ordinary man with sincere motives. He genuinely believes what he says, but whether he is actually receiving messages, or whether he is being deceived is unclear. He is not a trickster of sorts. what would he have to gain from what he does? Also he has made some statements which very soon will either come to pass or prove his predictions to be wrong. A prophet is 100 per cent right, one hundred per cent of the time. Anyway, the message is still the same, pray, hope and don't worry. Live life the best you can, be charitable, pray, fast and really live the Catholic Faith. The group actually seem to help each other along, and there are links to good sites, with prayerful reflections and indepth meditations. All in all for a person grounded in their Faith, Charlie is not going to cause any harm, and actually might do some good.

Glenn, thank you for your honest article on Charlie J's encounter with his Diocese.

I would like to say Charlie deserves credit for being a great man to write an article. 'Always a good read' I say. And I do not like to be patronised by some self opinionated stranger on the internet, as to how reading Charlie's articles MIGHT be in some mysterious way doing me harm or whatever.

Turn on the TV these days and it is full of cock a doodle do.

The press these days is full of more and some of the same cock a doodle do.

The internet. Don't go there unless you have shortcuts. Or you can be invaded by trolls or whatever cock a doodle do.

So what is left. A few good decent Christian writers like Glenn, Mark M, Charlie J.

So give us a break. And let God be Charlie's judge, just like the Bishop. Julia.

Thanks for this Glen, and all the work you do for us as we move towards Lord knows what.

I have fallen for false seers. Maria of Divine Mercy was a brief fling for me, but that old bad feeling drove me away pretty quickly. I would admit I followed Locutions longer, to its awkward last false prediction this past fall.

At least with Charlie as you have pointed out, we have no one in hiding, but a human face and a man who seems completely unpretentious.

Whether is he is seeing our future, or dreaming one, is something I can wait for. He is a solid writer that offers helpful advice, and I say this as a college English professor...God bless all of you...Jeff in Minnesota

Very good point made above "He is not a trickster of sorts. what would he have to gain from what he does?" very true. It's one of the reasons I keep a close eye on what he says, and he doesn't contradict church teaching, which is a green flag for me.

Glenn, in your write up in this article you posted the following and it really hit me as I listened today to the news about the planning that happened on Sea Island, GA at the recent meeting of the elite in the establishment (both liberals and republicans, not sure there's a difference anymore). Anyway, the word is they were planning how to stop Trump and how to usurp the people's will if Trump is elected and do something outside the normal electoral process at the convention. This is setting up Charlie's prediction to a T and you can see where it will lead to unrest if this underhanded manipulation by the establishment occurs:

"the next leader of the USA will not be elected, that is, he will not come through the normal political process; he has stated that there will probably be no presidential election, but if there is, it will be irrelevant (in other words, even if someone is formally elected, according to Charlie there will definitely be no swearing in ceremony for that elected person come January 20, 2017)"

I find it odd that the Archdiocese did not ask Charlie to submit to a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation. It's also interesting that the Archdiocese did not speak directly with any of the three priests who have been directly Charlie, but instead simply reviewed written correspondance.

For sure, Charlie's message is a very grave and serious one. After all, who in their right mind would want to undergo such catastrophic worldwide events as those that he has allegedly foreseen? For what he has purportedly been shown is devastating in many ways, at least until the time of the Rescue. And so while I think that he is very sincere, I am hoping that he is very sincerely mistaken, that humanity need not undergo such an severe and extensive conflagration.

Like many others, I recognize that in many ways the current spiritual state of humanity is in moral decline, however I personally am hoping that God will be able to steer this boat back into a better direction without such radical maneuvers such as Charlie foresees. Yet, just because we don't like the theme of Charlie's message, it is certainly no reason to dismiss him. In fact, because of the very seriousness of his message I think that he deserves a broad and a just hearing, that it might be considered and thoughtfully discerned. Knowing that God always forewarns grave events, we ought to at least respectfully consider such warnings when made by persons of faith who at least seem to be of sound heart and mind. After all, the Scriptures are rife with important warnings from the prophets sent by God for those times, and there is no reason to think that our times are any different.

Steve, the statement by the commission is from a preliminary investigation, so I infer a more lengthy one will be in the works soon, if not already begun.

As for those making much ado about the Republicans at the convention (allegedly plotting to change the rules), party chairman Reince Prebus has been in front of that, saying it's not gonna happen. If Trump has the majority of delegates he needs for nomination prior to the start of the convention, Prebus has said he will be the nominee. It Trump doesn't have the required delegates, then there will be a series of votes on the convention floor, and the votes after the first round will get interesting, as a large percentage of pledged delegates are then relieved of their initial pledge and can vote for anyone, even someone who wasn't yet a candidate in any of the primaries.

I've read all the comments above & not one soul can mention anything supernatural about Charlie's life. Did he pray for someone who was cured of something incurable? Has anyone seen him during any of his visions/locutions.

Everyone who follows Medj and Garabandal knows that catastrophic events are onthe horizon. How are Charlie's predictions any different from all of the dozens of other faithful Catholics who've told me that the warning will come in 1995, then 2000, then 2005 etc etc.

I first went to Bosnia, Medj in 1982 and was told that secrets would be revealed "soon". Well, what is "soon" in God's time?

I so much want to believe that the warning will come this year or next. The sooner the better.

Unfortunately, 40 years of studying saints and prophecies has made me realize that there are just too many boys and girls out there "crying wolf". They do a disservice to devout catholics. The wolf is coming but not this year nor next.

Charlie is a good, holy man. However, his predictions will soon prove to be false.Obama will finish his term of office and the next PRez will be electedvia the normal means.

We won't have long to wait to see another "MDM" type person discredited. I believethat Charlie is suffering from a neurological disorder. The Catholic catechism states that mental illness can possibly lessen, and even perhaps eliminate, the culpability of a person's sins.

Just one observation that leads me to differ with you slightly concerning the Archbishops statement. It appears that one reading was that Charlie was not an approved speaker, implying that he could receive approval. I read the statement as more limiting and declaratory - "will also not be approved...". Which I read as foreclosing approval. Very different from "is not approved".

I do agree that we will know very soon whether the meesages are authentic or not.

As was already apparent from my previous posts, I agree with Jim M. The tone and the very point of the statement by the commission is to effect a "shot across the bow" to anyone in any part of Church-owned property within the Archdiocese of Denver to be sure not to entertain the idea of inviting Charlie to speak at any such venue. It has the effect of a warning to both Charlie and any member of the clergy or laity that any attempt to invite Charlie to speak at a Church property in Denver will considered as disobedient to the Archbishop.

Charlie was honest enough about this preclusive nature of the statement in his summary description of the gist of his face to face meeting with the commission members in his blogpost dated yesterday, March 7th ("The Gamaliel Option"). In that post he states that he absolutely will not attempt to speak at any such Archdiocesan locations, that he will likely stick with private locations, and that he will even check in with the Archdiocese first if he decides to speak at a public venue (not owned or controlled by the Archdiocese) within the Denver area.

I dunno.. it's a full time job keeping my own nose clean.....It will rain or shine on the good and the bad... Is Charlie a self proclaimed mystic or did people give him the moniker? The CHurch becomes ever so confusing with liberal/ progressive or orthodox bishops.. Pharasitic....so many rules, the Spirit is stiffled...and I've actually witnessed the Spirit leave a conference because a bishop didn't like the music....So, we move to a diocese that supports our belief system??Like I said.. it's a full time job...

The Shepherd has spoken, "As has been demonstrated with other alleged apparitions, the danger exists of people placing greater faith in a prediction than in Christ’s words and promises. For these reasons, Mr. Johnston will also not be approved as a speaker in the Archdiocese of Denver. For those who are disappointed by this finding, the archdiocese encourages them to seek their security in Jesus Christ, the sacraments, and the Scriptures." Let's not try to find loopholes in what he advises because that may cause Archbishop Aquila some dismay, let's just try to focus on the sacraments and scriptures.

To be honest, I think too much is made of the validity or lack of validity of a given alleged mystic. People get way too hung up on juicy details and parsing words and over or under-generalizing everything. That's where discernment and common sense and reason come into play. The specific predictions and such take with a grain of salt. The advice that squares with Catholic teaching take onboard. There's so much absolutism among people: instead of taking the harder road and trying to discern individual pieces of information from an alleged seer, people tend to want to short-cut and either reject the whole person and ignore them, or accept every word like it is coming literally straight from God's mouth. These things ain't so simple, people.

Someone mentioned earlier that true prophets are 100% correct 100% of the time. I believe that statement is completely wrong. True prophets are human. If they are repeating something 100% verbatim that was given by God then yes they will be correct, but most of the time they are trying to provide their own interpretation and are limited by their own recollection.

Charlie's main piece of advice is to acknowledge God, take the next right step and be a sign of hope for others. That's some sound advice regardless of whether his predictions ever come true. He always defends Church teaching and says that the Sacraments and trust in God are paramount and more important than any private revelation. Again, it's a nice piece of advice.

As far as catastrophic world events and such, it doesn't take a prophet or a mystic to see that things are not going so well. There's massive upheaval in the Middle East that even secular writers are warning could spark WWIII. Relations with Russia and Israel are not good. Secular economic writers are sounding the alarm on the world economy. Low oil process are stressing countries that have lots of weapons. North Korea is unpredictable. China is dangerous and is economically struggling. The Church is in scandal. US leadership is currently non-existent and its morality is worse. The cultural and social fabric of the country is crumbling. These things happen. Wars happen. Systemic changes happen, governments fall. It's happened hundreds of times in history. Why not again? It's foolish to assume that the world has settled into its permanent geopolitical state. Why not this year or next? Maybe yes, maybe no. But why not?

In regard to the comments about Fr. Gobbi, just remember that Jonah's prophecies didn't come true either, but we know from Christ Himself that those prophecies were true and instrumental in calling those people of Nineva to repentance and conversion.

There are too many red flags with this guy, I will just mention two, the first he says he had visions (including the BVM) since he was a young boy, but he only converted to the Catholic faith much later, the second that he considered Islam as part of the three Abrahamic faiths until 9/11, so no one from heaven told him it was demonic, very hard to swallow.

Why are those necessarily red flags? I know several converts many of whom are very holy people and better Catholics than most including myself. It's not a simple or easy matter to convert from how you were raised and what you know. So it took him awhile to make the move. So what? The Lord doesn't badger and push. He invites. Charlie seems pretty well behind the Church now so why hold it against him that he didn't instantly convert at age 10?

And again, perhaps Heaven wanted him to make up his own mind about Islam, to come to truth later. Maybe it wasn't prudent to tell him that Islam is demonic. Everyone learns differently and it happens according to the interplay of God's will and ours.

Your comments seem to be a classic case of judging a mystic according to what you believe Heaven should have or must have told him. It seems very narrow-minded and presumptuous to make those assumptions

I've watched Charlie Johnston for a long time. There's something I still can't put my finger on that has bothered me about him and his "messages." He entices with comments about his angelic visitations...he alludes to significant foretelling and having seen what is going to happen. He says it is dire, very dire. But then he begs off telling that information on the pretext of 'what good would it do you'? or telling the curious that they are 'focusing on the wrong thing' or some such thing.

So I wonder, what is the purpose of his "visions?" If he's not to share them with the general public, then why allude to them at all? Isn't the effect to draw someone in and dangle a carrot in front of them, kind of like teasing? Somehow it reminds me of the tactic of a little kid saying he knows something the adults are planning, but he can't tell you. You'll find out soon. 'I know, but I'm not telling. I can't tell you. I know a lot you don't know, but I'm not allowed to say what it is.'

So what do you call that when someone does that? Seeking attention? Wanting to be more important than they are in reality? Wanting to suggest being in the know so others will listen to him? Isn't this the tactic of T.V. stations to run a "teaser" commercial out there so you'll tune into the news hour to see what the story is about?

Secondly I've noticed he's very much softened his "message" since beginning his blog. And he denies he's done so. Meaning at first there was quite a bit about the disasters to come, albeit vague, but now he deflects all questions about these as if they are irrelevant. For instance, on Oct. 26, 2014 he said ...I was instructed to begin to think seriously about a world in utter collapse and chaos...", and in a response to a comment on April 21, 2015 he said, "[But when I tell you] the Storm is the greatest crisis in the history of the world..." it certainly alludes to very dire happenings. What can one conclude with vague assertions "the greatest crisis in the history of the world?" I can think of some very grave situations even in this present time in some parts of the world, and even more from the past. What about Hiroshima? What about WWII? A greater crises than what happened in any of these instances? What might that be? Yet if someone supposes apocalyptic types of events, he chastises them and says he never said that, and says it annoys him when people jump to that conclusion. So he won't clarify, but only continues to entice and even confuse. And I know confusion comes from the devil. Lately he's been telling the viewers to 'reflect on what his words might mean...'. It seems to be very manipulative.

He also has a hair trigger temper, which used to be extremely evident in his responses, but which in the last 6 months or so he toned down to seem more reasonable and docile in his responses. Yet, recently when discussions veered into current presidential races, he abruptly declared he would no longer post comments that referred to one or another candidate by name, even though just a few days before he opined freely on the presidential races himself. (He took time to excuse himself for this, saying in essence, it was merely a force of habit, but now he realizes he should not engage in it. He did this just before he stopped discussion on his blog with a "moratorium."). Yet he commented freely on politics up to this time, never thinking a thing of it. (continued in next post comment...)

(continued from previous comment)It's his blog - he can do as he pleases. I have no dog in this fight, and don't care one way or the other. There are thousands if not millions of bloggers out there, he's merely one. But my own Catholic radar has been leery of him for a while, and the statement advising caution on the part of the Denver Archdiocese was enough to convince me to turn my attention away from him.

I am reminded of the warnings of Jesus in Matthew 24: "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect." Even the elect... If that is the case, no thanks.

(I apologize for having to post as Anonymous - my OpenID does not work. I have posted in the past as "Bee.")

1. CJ seems to scour the Internet looking for negative comments about his prophecies on other people's blogs which he then corrects. Granted there was no Internet in 1917 but had it been available can anyone imagine Lucia or Jacinta trolling the Internet looking to correct comments about their prophecies?

2. There's something odd about the notion of "real-time" messages. Not only CJ but other alleged apparitions such as Medjugorje as well. Consider that we now have the latest message from heaven delivered right to our email Inbox, and from the comfort of our homes we can grab our iPads and navigate to CJ's blog for the latest details. Is this what the Catholic faith and working our our salvation is really about? There's something almost gnostic thinking that we're in possession of special knowledge as to how all this is to play out.

3. Would God really expect mankind to take claims of this magnitude as coming from Him simply because it's posted on a blog? Shouldn't there be miracles or signs to accompany this as proof?

With respect to your reply to Jim M. above, and for correcting your "mistake" in your original post, I commend you. However, it's considered good form in the blogosphere to acknowledge any mistake and the correction you make to an original post either within the body of the newly edited post or at least at the very end of the post (unless you are instead posting the correction as a separate additional post - the way a newspaper does).

Bloggers that employ this best practice usually say, at least in a footnote at the bottom of the newly edited post: "In the original version of the above post (dated March 7) I made an error in stating "x, y and z" (hat tip to Jim M. for pointing out my error in reporting/interpretation in the comments section below). I've now corrected that error and the current version of the post above has been edited after the fact to reflect the correction."

You really ought to consider doing this, rather than leaving your readers wondering what the dispute was about in the earliest portion of the comments. It's only good practice.

I couldn't agree more with the last three comments posted on March 9th. I stopped paying attention to CJ when nothing of any significance happened last Fall, after he indicated the storm would intensify greatly at that time and saying "and a great fall it will be". He also said that Christmas of 2013 would be the last normal Christmas - LOL. It makes me wonder why Fr. Mitch Pacwa follows him, or at least, did follow him.

Hi Jackisback,You are right--I probably should have noted the text that was changed in the article. It was a minor change though--it had to do with the wording of "..will also not be approved" which I mistakenly quoted in my commentary as "is not approved".Thanks for commenting!

On another note, I am working on a sort of "discernment timeline" in regards to Charlie's prophesies which, barring any new statements from the Archdiocese, may be helpful in discerning what has been predicted by Charlie regarding future events to show a timeframe of when/if they should be fulfilled, or not.

****NOTE: The article above has been updated as of March 10, 2016. A new section at the bottom of the article entitled "Additional information: -A brief timeline of predicted events that should prove useful for discernment in the coming months"

I don't think we need a mystic to tell us that a storm is coming. Our Lady of the Rosary said as much at Fatima. Speaking of the Chastisement, Malachi Martins was saying back in the 1990's, that it would all be over by the end of 2017.

The Bishop's statement includes a quotation from Christ, Himself, "No one knows the day or the hour, only the Father in heaven." If that was one of the determining factors in judging the worthiness of Charlie Johnston's talk or messages given him, then that's a huge mistake!Because that quotation as to what Charlie has prophesied, is out of context.Christ was speaking about His Second Coming and the Final Judgment at the end of time. What Charlie has prophesied, is not that at all, it's the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart. Nothing has been said about the End of Time, the Last Judgment or the Second Coming of Christ being predicted. It sounds like what he has said, will lead to a rebuilding of governments and societies. I'm late to this ballgame, I follow a few other seers who are practicing Catholics, daily communicants, devoted to the Holy Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin Mary, and try to compare and contrast their messages with Divine Revelation in Scripture & Tradition, Magisterial teaching,the lives of the Saints (their private revelation)(for which I thank this site for its contributions, Glenn), and major Church approved apparitions such as Lourdes, LaSalette, Laus, Fatima, Akita, Kibeho, etc., as well as Medjugorje (not yet approved).So, I was only dimly aware of Charlie Johnston, but heard his name mentioned in a recent conversation by a priest of our diocese (in a positive). Quite awhile ago, our former Pastor, recently in the national news for a great homily he gave, made reference to "the coming storm" in a homily. I always wanted to ask him what he meant by that. Your article on Charlie, his background and messages helped me to get greater insight and understanding into our current times. I just have a hard time when Diocesan Commissions are set up maybe with good priests/folk, but often without the necessary studies and experience with ascetical/mystical theology AND all the areas mentioned above. Last point, that quotation from Christ is out of context and misapplied, not only that, from what I've read here, Charlie didn't profess to know the day or the hour of his prophesied event, the Rescue ... just near the end of 2017.P.S. Check it out ... there is a fairly substantial asteroid that is calculated to brush close by the earth on October 12, 2017 ... the day before the 100th Anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, Portugal witnessed by over 70,000 people in person & reported in the NY Times.

Charlie predicts a large shrine will be built at the top of Mount Meeker after the rescue. Meeker is the backdrop for the now defunct Camp St Malo. John Paul II stayed there during his US visit.

The complex JPII stayed in was destroyed by fire. A few years later, a massive flood finished Malo off. St Catherine's Chapel, built on an elevated rock, remains. I would be interested to know how much JPII's visit figured into his choice for Mt. Meeker.

Charlie also mentions Medjegorge on his website. That alone puts up a red flag for me. I will be watching in July when Charlie says the storm will begin.

Glenn said above in his additional information: "Hypothetically speaking, I personally feel that even if all of the events listed above leading up to the "Rescue" were to in fact occur, I believe that only the Rescue itself would ultimately confirm Charlie's prophetic mission and message. In other words, while the things that are predicted to occur during the "Storm", like the economic collapse and the toppling of governments, the confrontations with political Islam and then China, the alliance with Russia etc. if they actually do occur, then these signs would certainly weigh very, very heavily in Charlie's favor."

And if these other things predicted DO NOT occur, what does that say about Charlie?

Glenn, the whole "test" that you and many others imposed on the Locutions To The World (LTTW) seer was that if the economic crises did not occur during the visit of Pope Francis to the U.S. as predicted (which it did not) then the seer would be discredited. However, are you only holding Charlie Johnston to his "Rescue" prophecy, and not to his openly and boldly stated statements regarding Obama's term in office and November's election, as well as his other dire warnings he calls "The Storm"? I would think if there is an election, and Obama does not leave office before his term is up, and the elected party is sworn in, then Charlie Johnston would be in the same category as the LTTW seer; i.e. unreliable and false, no? In my mind, it seems Charlie is already waffling (modifying and qualifying) some of his earlier predictions as things he said or implied would happen are not seeming to come to pass.

Are you imposing different criteria for LTTW than you will for Charlie Johnston?

As I quoted in the article on "Locutions to the world", the book of Deuteronomy says: "When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him." (Deu. 18:22)

It is a universally accepted and steadfast rule of discernment that when a alleged prophet speaks publicly of a warning or other matter given to him by God, the prophesy must come true (unless it is specifically a warning for repentance, like we see for example with Jonah and the Ninevites) otherwise the false prophesy proves that the prophet has not been guided or sent by God.

Now, in the article I showed how Charlie himself wrote that "I have only eight public prophecies that I insist on. Only the visible, miraculous Rescue by Our Lady, the Immaculate Conception in late 2017, is time sensitive. Five things must happen between now and the Rescue, but can happen at any time during that period."

Now, in this list of eight prophesies he does not include anything concerning the US presidential election . Yet, as shown in the article, he has said elsewhere on several occasions that he was told that President Obama would not finish his term and that our next stable national leader will not come from the election process.

So, while the eight prophesies must come to pass if Charlie's prophetic mission is authentic, I think one would have to include also the "Obama not finishing his term/next leader not elected" prophesy in with the other eight, though I concede that it may be a bit of a grey area, since he does not specifically include it as a public prophesy that he insists upon.

Hypothetically speaking, I will say that if this particular prediction does not come to pass (the Obama not finishing his term/next leader not elected) I suspect that quite a few folks would declare him to be false.

Thanks for your comments and may God bless you and your loved ones,Glenn Dallaire

The word not is a grammatical marker in the English language indicating negativity. "Not approved" means that, not approved. Yet CJ in his usual way is attempting to make the "not an approved speaker" mean maybe approved. He says he is not allowed to speak in Catholic church property but the diocese in its generosity is allowing him to speak in other venues. CJ makes this seem this is maybe because the diocese does secretly approve of him but is taking a wait and see approach or in CJ's words the Gamaliel option. But let's unpack this and think it through. Of course the diocese will let CJ speak in non-Church property because they have no authority over this property. They don't own it or manage it so they have no say over who makes presentations in it. If CJ were to give a presentation in the local Denver MacDonald's restaurant the diocese could do nothing because it is not their property or under their jurisdiction. Only MacDonalds or the police could. So CJ's veiled implications that the diocese isn't letting him speak at their property but at property owned by others over which they have no authority and that this means they might approve and are taking a wait and see approach, is nonsense. The message could not be more clear. We are so concerned that do not approve/like/wish you to speak at any of our property and hence influence/hurt the children of God. The same goes for his "writings." The diocese does not own or have authority over his Facebook page or blog so it can't shut them down. This: "After reviewing the commission’s findings and in keeping with his pastoral office, Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila of Denver has decided to strongly advise the faithful to exercise prudence and caution in regards to Mr. Charlie Johnston’s alleged divine visions and messages. As has been demonstrated with other alleged apparitions, the danger exists of people placing greater faith in a prediction than in Christ’s words and promises.

For these reasons, Mr. Johnston will also not be approved as a speaker in the Archdiocese of Denver." Means the diocese is not giving approval for CJ speak because of what it found in its investigation not because it is "waiting and seeing." If it was waiting and seeing and had no reason to fear for the faithful' swell being it could have said CJ is an approved speaker pending further investigation. This way the diocese would have obtained more ,fodder" for its waiting and watching ruminations.

CJ is clutching at straws but continues to twist meanings even those communicated clearly by Church authority. Let us make no bones about it. A not is a not is a not. Not approved and strongly advised to exercise prudence and caution mean we don't approve of this prophet/seer, take heed, be very careful! Turn to the gospels, you are safe there. No watching and waiting to see if is the truth required.

The Archdiocese could have told Charlie to shut down his blog. And they could have instructed him not to speak anywhere...even at the local Denver MacDonald's restaurant. But they didn't.

You seem to be suggesting that the Archdiocese failed to do this because they wouldn't be able to legally enforce such a prohibition in the event Charlie violated it. But the Church tells the faithful to do, and not to do, all sorts of things even though they can't enforce it through civil law. The Baltimore Catechism tells me that I must attend Mass on Sunday however if I choose to sleep in on a Sunday a Church inquisitor doesn't show up at my door.

Neither did the Archdiocese did not instruct the faithful in clear and unambiguous terms not to follow Charlie. When Bishop Francis Mugavero of Brooklyn addressed the so-called Bayside apparitions he stated: "Members of Christ's faithful are hereby directed to refrain from participating in the vigils and from disseminating any propaganda related to the Bayside apparitions. They are also discouraged from reading any such literature."

In regards to Charlie, the Archdiocese only instructed us at this time to exercise prudence and caution. You seem to be interpreting that as meaning "...we don't approve of this prophet/seer." But I believe if the Archdiocese meant to convey that at this time they would have clearly stated that.

Having put together this website over the past 8 years requiring the investigation and study of the lives of perhaps close to 100 different mystics, with special attention given to the official Church position (or lack thereof) of each of them, I can say that this Statement from the Archdiocese of Denver is definitely NOT a condemnation, nor is it a affirmation. It is strictly cautionary in nature.

One should note that each of these official negative judgments:A) Took place here in North America against LAYPERSONS, and NOT professed religious.B) There were a number of very strict sanctions issued, and these sanctions pertained to religious and the laity.

The examples above completely refutes the idea that a local Bishop has no authority over a lay mystic/visionary, or over the followers of such persons. A Bishop has the authority to effectively sanction and shutdown any alleged lay mystic/visionary, as we see in each of the examples above.

These few example show that actions such as:-"Forbid members of the clergy of any ecclesiastical jurisdiction to celebrate the sacraments on the site of Holy Love Ministries"

-"Admonish the faithful of the Diocese of Cleveland to cease gathering for any religious, liturgical, spiritual, or devotional purpose on the site of Holy Love Ministries"

-"Declare that the Confraternity of the United Hearts of Jesus and Mary is not an approved association of the Christian faithful in the Diocese of Cleveland and may not legitimately use the name ‘Catholic’ or represent itself as a Catholic group."

-"....call all clergy and faithful to refrain from any activities connected to the “Bayside Movement” or the alleged visions of Mrs. Lueken.Furthermore, the faithful should not publish, disseminate, or distribute literature or other media surrounding these alleged apparitions."

-"The Archdiocese of Baltimore has directed that the Thursday night prayer group meetings held at St. Joseph Church in Emmitsburg, Maryland be discontinued at this time.The Archdiocese of Baltimore is unable to support the message of the video "Unbridled Mercy" and has asked that sales of the video be discontinued immediately."

-"...the doctrine promoted by the Movement, “Community of the Lady ofall Nations”, better known as “The Army of Mary”, is heretical. Whoeverknowingly and deliberately embraces this doctrine incurs anexcommunication latae sententiae due to heresy."

In fact, the last example above concerning the members of the "Army of Mary" even declares OFFICIAL DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION for those who choose to continue to follow this particular movement, which was led by a mystic who died last year (2015).

These are just some examples of what official Archdiocesan negative decisions look like, and the sanctions that can be incurred against lay-person visionaries/mystics/prophets. And this is why it can be firmly stated that the Statement from the Archdiocese of Denver concerning Charlie Johnston is strictly cautionary, and NOT negative.

On a personal note, I can add that I had met with two of the four alleged mystics mentioned above who have since been sanctioned, and I knew one of them quite well. Also, in one of these cases I personally spoke in-depth with a diocesan official who was one of the persons responsible for the sanctions that were issued, and he explained in much detail the processes involved in such cases.

Seem to have missed the main thrust of what I said. The Catholic Church cannot stop alleged seers from speaking/operating on non-Catholic property. This does not mean that because the Church "allows" alleged seer CJ to speak in non-Catholic church property that they might believe he is authentic. It means the Church can't do what the Church can't do. But the Church has done what it can do and ban him from speaking on their property and alert the faithful to be very cautious. Any sensible person can see that this sends a message that the Church is concerned about CJ, quite concerned. I did not say CJ has been disapproved in totality as per MDM but that what the Church has said recently is negative about his presentations and general ideas. A not is a not is a not. Not approved to speak. That is a negative statement. Heed it and turn to the gospels. Listen to approved speakers such as ordained priests and archbishops and the pope instead. So. Enter yet the best speaker who ever walked this earth, Jesus.

I can relate to Archbishop Aquila. If I told my child that I didn't want her to watch a certain movie in my home because I thought it may harm her psychologically and then found out that she watched it at a friend's house, do you think I would just let it go? No, I would be upset that she went around my authority on a technicality. The bishops are there to help us because they have the anointing of the Holy Spirit in their consecration. We are lay people and sometimes scared by the ways of the world so along comes someone that 'knows' what is in store and then it doesn't come to pass (Christmas 2013 would be the last normal Christmas). Jesus gave us every tool we need. Sorry Glen that you have fallen prey to what I fell prey to in the past. Fasting will get rid of it. Prayers.... By the way, I thought that you were critical of Medjugorje supporters because they were disobedient to the local bishop. I guess the shoe is on the other foot now.

Firstly, although it apparently falls upon deaf ears for a couple of commentators here, for the record I would simply like point out once again that I personally am neutral concerning Charlie.

What is really disconcerting though is how a couple of folks here are really trying their darndest to twist the Statement from the Denver Archdiocese into some sort of negative decision.

So lets do this:

For those couple of individuals here who declare the Archdiocesan Statement to be negative, please then list even one restriction or sanction put upon Charlie through this Statement (spoiler alert: There is not even a single restriction placed upon him)

Those who are trying to frame the "will not be an approved speaker" statement as some sort of restriction or sanction are being completely disingenuous, because just like every other layperson in the Diocese, Charlie was never a approved speaker in the first place! By default, no one is an approved speaker, other than priests and deacons.

The fact is, everyone who lives in the Archdiocese is not an approved speaker (except for the dozen or so persons who have sought and received approval, something for which Charlie himself has not sought).

The fact remains that the Statement did not contain even one restriction or sanction. Every single thing that Charlie was able to do or say the day before the Statement came out, he is still completely free to do or say now. Not a single restriction was placed upon him. Yet, a couple of folks here seek to twist the Statement into some kind of negative decision.

It is not my intention to defend Charlie or his purported prophetic mission or message. As host of this website I simply am called to defend the truth. And the truth is that the Archdiocesan Statement is essentially cautionary, and contains no formal sanctions whatsoever against Charlie. To frame it otherwise is being disingenuous. To try to posit that the "will not be an approved speaker" statement as some sort of restriction or sanction is incorrect, given that he was never approved speaker in the first place, and that and every other layperson in the diocese is not an approved speaker either.

In short, a restriction or sanction consists of taking away (removing) or limiting a privilege. For a layperson like Charlie, the Archbishop could have put a whole host of restrictions or limitations on his work, as I have shown in my comment a few posts above where we see a whole host of restrictions and sanctions that were put on 4 other laypersons in the past decade who claimed to be mystics/visionaries. In Charlie's case, the fact remains that Archdiocese did not put any restrictions on him whatsoever--all that he was doing before the Statement he is entirely free to do now, even though a couple of folks here seem to try to frame it otherwise.

Simply put, the Statement from the Archdiocese is a strongly cautionary Statement that does not contain any formal judgement.

First, for all the anonymous posters it would be great if you chose a screen name so we can follow your comments throughout the thread.

The Archbishop said what he said, and didn't say what he didn't say. My preference would have been if he condemned Charlie as false and ordered him to shut down his blog. Then I could stop stockpiling and begin to live a normal life again. I'm not looking forward to the breakdown of all governments, tanks rolling down the streets, money becoming worthless, and war with China. I'm not saying I believe Charlie is true, my gut tells me he's probably not. But to the anonymous poster above I think it's wishful thinking to read in some sort of "technical" prohibition by the Archbishop against Charlie.

The Archbishop is our Shepherd in this matter and as you rightly pointed out is anointed by the Holy Spirit. However he simply told us to exercise caution and prudence. No more and no less.

CJ stated: "The only restriction placed on my presentations is that I can’t use a Church or Church property in Denver for the venue for them. They explained that not being an “approved speaker” simply means I can’t use Church property in the Diocese as a venue. I remain free to give public presentations in Denver at other venues. In my original rush of relief, I told them I would stick to private meetings in Denver. They reiterated that I am free to give public presentations here with that restriction. If I ever do give a public presentation in my home Archdiocese, I will check in with them first."Glenn D said," ?..Archdiocese did not put any restrictions on him whatsoever. " Rather a contradiction here.

Steve, the fact is this was only a preliminary investigation. It would take a second and more rigorous investigation, and only if Archbishop Aquila decides to call for one, to either approve or condemn Charlie. They didn't address the nature of his "visitations" in this investigation. For me, the "please be very cautious" message sent by the Archdiocese is enough.

Anonymous, I think you're playing with words. Sure anyone who's not an approved speaker is in fact restricted from speaking. So I suppose one could say that not only is Charlie "under a restriction" in the Archdiocese of Denver but so are you and I as well.

Again, the Archbishop said what he said and didn't say what he didn't say. I wish he had said more and I wish he ordered Charlie to undergo a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation, but he didn't.

You're evidently convinced that Charlie is false and you made your point. Why are you obsessed in playing a gotcha game with Glenn? Your posts are getting somewhat redundant and are bordering on trolling.

Steve, I agree with everything you have said except one thing and it doesnt concern Charlie. Not everyone who disagrees with a topic is a troll. A troll is one that constantly attacks just for the sake of argument or maybe for the fun of it. Anonymous above was not being a troll, just disagreeing. For that matter, people that disagree with your point of view could call you a troll if thats the true definition.

I feel most people here are searching for the truth and all of us carry our own opinions. As long as disagreement is respectful and considerate it would be considered a healthly, fruitful debate...that being said. Please dont accuse someone with a different opinion..

Let's settle a point of confusion here. Remember first that the Catholic Church operates via the principle of subsidiarity (all issues first are attempted to be settled at the most local level). Knowing that, if for example I wanted to give a talk to interested people at my local parish about the best textbooks to consider for use at the parish elementary school, are you saying Glenn and Steve, that my pastor would be required to get approval to speak from the bishop?

Well, to get to the heart of the matter, here is simply what I have taken away from the Archdiocesan Statement:

Since the Archbishop decided not to sanction or restrict Charlie in any way, essentially refraining from any judgment concerning his purported prophetic mission, then I simply choose to follow suit and “wait and see”, while at the same time however keeping in mind that the Statement from the Archdiocese stressed and urged much caution.

For those who try to frame the Archdiocesan Statement as a negative decision, I think I have shown clearly in my comment above, using the examples I gave from four other alleged lay visionaries what a negative decision actually looks like, and especially what variety actual restrictions and sanctions from a Bishop can consist of, from mild sanctions to very severe sanctions.

As I have stated previously, I continue remain neutral concerning Charlie. I sincerely seek to provide balanced and fair reporting, seeking to bring forth the truth here as best I can.

Within a year or so from now, barring any further Statements from the Denver Archdiocese, we will all know the truth concerning the authenticity of Charlie’s purported prophetic mission through the realization, or lack of realization, of the prophesized events. I can say that I have sincerely tried to present things in a just and balanced manner, trying to give Charlie the benefit of a just hearing here on this website. One thing is for sure—time will soon tell whether Charlie’s predictions come to pass, or not. And since I personally have remained neutral all along, whatever happens I certainly will NOT be saying “I told you so!”----I hope only to be able to say "I have told you true."

Hi Jackisback,Firstly, I am speaking only of laypersons here, and not priests or deacons, for the guidelines for consecrated and professed religious is different than laypersons. To my knowledge most every diocese here in the USA requires pre-approval for LAYPERSONS to speak publicly on "matters of faith and morals" to an assembled congregation on Church property, most particularly during the context of a Mass, but also to speak publicly in any public gathering on Church property. However, simple things such as announcements are not subject to this requirement. Now, some priests overlook this requirement and allow certain laypersons to speak publicly about things such as popular devotions etc. to assembled congregation on Church property, but this is really doubtfully permissible under the guideline of most Archdioceses.

Here is a link from an American Bishop that lays out the common Diocesan guidelines for speakers quite succinctly. You will note that the requirements for pre-approval are often quite strict. Therefore, its very easy to understand why a purported "prophet" would not be an approved speaker.

I have been meaning to say one other thing: Not that I am at all qualified to do so but if I had been in a position to counsel the Archdiocese of Denver concerning Charlie Johnston, I would have actually recommended the EXACT statement and approach that they took. So in my mind, the Statement and decision the Archdiocese is actually exactly what I personally think it should be. In other words, I join quite a few others who think that the "Gamaliel approach" is the best one at this time. No sense coming down hard on Charlie when he has not said or done anything contrary to Church doctrine, and also given that time itself will soon reveal the truth or falsity of his purported prophesies.

I read the link Glenn. I could see quite a few pastors outside the Archdiocese of Denver inviting Charlie to speak on their properties on the flimsy excuse that Charlie really isn't giving talks on faith or morals. There's nothing about what Charlie says to do in the face of the alleged "Storm" that has anything to do with the basics of faith in the everlasting covenant. "Acknowledging God, taking the next right step, and being a sign of hope to others" is not even coming close to New Testament concepts. Instead, what Charlie preaches is just barely beyond natural law concepts. Also, making predictions about dire things to occur to our economy and predicting the world to suffer war and death is also not a matter of faith. The only thing that might cross the line of the guidelines you cite is the claim Charlie makes as to the source of his information about predicted future events. But even in that vein there is plenty of gray area or wiggle room.

The point of my hypothetical was to illustrate that lots of folks (and priests) consider Charlie to be completely harmless. Just like my example of wanting to give a talk about textbooks - and it's clear from the guidelines you cite, Glenn, that no pastor would feel compelled to seek approval from his Bishop to grant me a speaking venue on that topic, as it has very little to do with faith and morals - the point is that it simply isn't true that "everyone that is not an approved speaker is in fact restricted from speaking." I would not be restricted from speaking in my example (so long as my pastor was ok with the text of my talk), and no permission from the Bishop would need to be sought for me to speak.

So I agree with Leila: the restriction from speaking in the Archdiocese of Denver means something significant. Charlie is not giving talks as an authority on faith or morals. The restriction put in place by the Archbishop is designed to prevent pastors in his Archdiocese from going rogue and inviting Charlie to speak there. The message isn't just: you need my approval for Charlie to speak at your parish; rather, it's "Charlie will not be approved as a speaker, so don't bother asking for approval." That puts Charlie in a completely different category than anyone else who might want to speak on Church property generally.

Plus, I have an example on point: when I lived in Chicago, AFL-CIO leader John Sweeney was given time at the pulpit during the time the priest would normally give his homily at mass on Sunday (this was in Holy Name Cathedral in downtown Chicago no less). Mr. Sweeney actually did speak about morals, as he extolled on about the virtues of socialist labor union ideology and how that fit so nicely with Catholic social teaching. It made me sick to my stomach. I doubt that Cardinal Bernardin's permission was sought for Mr. Sweeney to speak that day (not that it wouldn't have been granted in that case!). Mr. Sweeney's talk was offensive to me on a number of fronts, but once the pastor gave him the green light to speak, it wasn't possible to stop him from speaking.

My point is that priests take quite a few liberties with the principle of subsidiarity. My alma mater Notre Dame is proof of that: having given an honorary degree in law to Barack Obama in 2009 and now being a breath away from giving the Laetare Medal to Joe Biden. Notre Dame is doing what they're doing even against the local Bishop's very vocal objections. Apparently, orders of priests (the Congregation of the Holy Cross in Notre Dame's case) need not obey diocesan Bishops.

It wouldn't surprise me if Charlie got invited to speak at a Jesuit college within the Archdiocese of Denver.

While I don't claim to have any sort of spiritual gift, I wrote a book on the prophecies of St. Hildegard and I have been given written permission from the bishop's office to share my research throughout my diocese at the discretion of the individual parish priests. Though most of what I present is past history, I argue that some of Hildegard's prophecies are unfolding in today's world and, like Mr. Johnston, I lay out a scenario for the future based on what she wrote.

The public decision of the Archdiocese preventing Mr. Johnston from speaking on church property was probably a negative. In any case we'll know soon if he's for real, he confidently predicts that president Obama will not finish his second term.

Incidentally, Hildegard's version of future events is not the same as Mr. Johnston's.

Let me add that I have a problem with Mr. Johnston's insistence that the "storm" is not to be regarded as a punishment. He repeats this often and claims it is essential to understand the messages.

This is in direct contradiction to the message of Our Lady of Akita, warning that if men did not change, a great chastisement (storm) would afflict the world. That chastisement hasn't occurred yet, but if it does it would have to be regarded as a punishment.

Since the 1970s have men changed? That, I suppose, is a matter of opinion. If you think that from a moral standpoint the Church is in need of reform, then Mr. Johnston's prophecies are dangerous, as they promote complacency. If you think the Church is spiritually in good health, and the "storm" arrives, then Our Lady was wrong.

The problem is that the apparition in Akita is Church-approved and Mr. Johnston is not.

This matter must be approached and discerned in at least three parts, I believe.

The first part is whether the word "Chastisement" which you refer to in regards to the messages of Our Lady of Akita is actually the correct word translated into English. I have read quite a bit concerning Akita over the years and I do not recall ever seeing the choice of this word. I would have to differ with you here because the more common English translation I have almost always seen used is the word "Warning", and not "Chastisement". To illustrate this simply do a Google search for the words "Akita" and "Chastisement" together and you will get only about 7570 results, whereas if you do the same search replacing Chastisement with Warning you will get 357,000 results, which is literally 350,000 more results. Not ma scientific study of course, but I think it makes an obvious point.

This distinction is important because the English words "chastisement" or "punishment" does not accurately convey the purpose and intention behind the forthcoming event. The word "Warning" or "Purification" are much more appropriate in conveying the intention, which is the conversion, salvation and renewal of humanity.

Secondly, when reading through the various prophesies concerning the "Warning/Storm/Purification/Chastisement" etc...one is free to believe that the various messages could POSSIBLY be speaking of not just one event, but actually two different events. While I happen to think the various purported heavenly messages that have been given are all speaking of the same event, we must not make any assumptions as being factual.

Thirdly, when reflecting upon what God's purpose and intention is behind the predicted event(s) which are often referred to as the Warning, I personally see no contradiction between what Charlie Johnston refers to as the "Storm" and what Akita and Kibeho (Church approved), Garabandal (currently not approved) and the private revelations of numerous other mystics often refers to as the "Warning" or "Purification". The purpose of it is not merely a "punishment" but is really to be a intensely powerful source of conversion and renewal for all of humanity.

Just my .02 cents, for whatever it is worth.May God bless you and your loved ones,Glenn Dallaire

I dunno. CJ doesn't do it for me. The reasons abound for me personally. Some are: - His temper when a poster opposes him (sometimes, not always)- His tendency in pointing out rather frequently his backers in high places (like a "Bishop' who posts as Yong Duk he mentions a lot). - His frequent need to point out he has three spiritual directors (all priests)- The vagueness of his steps for preparedness (take the next right step) seldom mentioning the sacraments and repentance- The tone of "mutual admiration society" of his regular posters to his stories - His fairly frequent reference to his intelligence- The time frame grows dramatically short to "defeat political Islam" and join Russia in a battle with China, et al, before the Rescue- The general failure of hundreds of other so-called mystics of our day to get anything right- The fact that his angel chuckles and makes wry comments - this one bugs me, although i don't know why- The fact that he stresses that he almost never figured out his angle's predictions, but yet, in hindsight, they always came true - His past doesn't seem ( again, to me ) to be a past of a guy in constant contact with a Heavenly spirit.I know these are petty. The list goes on and on. There is just something in me that seems to disconnect with CJ rather than connect. I can't put my finger on it, though. I'm neither inspired nor repulsed by him. Just got a vague uneasiness with him.

Nice list Anonymous. In addition I find it very odd that an alleged seer says that he does tasks which Mary "presents" to him and which he in turn "approves." I really don't think anything Mary asks or suggests needs our "approval" as if she is an employee making suggestions to an employer or CEO and those who think that they can approve or not approve are being quite arrogant.

CJ said recently: I don’t set my schedule, but merely approve what Mary presents to me.

Hi Anonymous in the post directly above,A correction to avoid any misunderstandings: The "Mary" that Charlie occasionally refers to in such comments (concerning his schedule) is not the Blessed Virgin Mary, but is a volunteer who coordinates his schedule when travelling.

Thanks for your comment and may God bless you and your loved ones,Glenn Dallaire

Hi, sir Glen i really love your website and learning a lot beacause of it...I hope you would also add the story of St. Martin de Porres here.I know my comment is out of topic, but if i have to comment about these things and about all modern visionaries, all i have to say is we do not have to fight for who and what is right or wrong, just trust in God and he will show you the way.

We can distinguish two types of warnings. One is advanced notice of the possibility of a painful event which can be avoided if certain unwanted behaviors are not repeated, like parents disciplining their kids. The other is like a hurricane warning on T.V.; even though it can be very unpleasant, it's not going to be avoided by any change of behavior.

I see in Mr. Johnston's "storm" the second type of warning, otherwise he would not be so insistent that it should not be regarded as a punishment from God. Akita, on the other hand is clearly of the first type of warning.

The first type of warning is conditional and the second is not -- a big difference. The two prophecies are not only not compatible, but mutually contradictory.

CJ said " If all you have is faith, you have nothing more than the demons in hell."Jesus Christ said "Matthew 17:20He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." Jesus says faith is sufficient for our needs. He did not say it just makes us as poorly resourced as demons.

CJ is promoting the sale of his prayer cards prefixed by anxiety provoking intimations there will be inadequate medical supplies soon especially for the elderly and frail. "But soon (and it is happening far more rapidly than I expected) availability of normal services will be spotty – and if you have something chronic or are elderly, much will not be available at all as surviving doctors start working under an implicit triage mentality because of the shortages of supplies and equipment. God will not leave you bereft."Prayer is or should be free. Rather than spending money on his prayer cards donations for the required services and equipment would help to answer prayers and achievement of God's desire to not leave us bereft.

The prayer cards are being sold by a third party religious goods company not by Charlie. There are plenty of things I find concerning in regards to Charlie's messages, but I'd have to say the sale of a $1 prayer card by a third party is not one of them.

I did read Charlie's post this morning, and took note of these comments:

"Things are speeding up throughout the world as things break down."

"Right now, many things are collapsing before our very eyes."

"But soon (and it is happening far more rapidly than I expected) availability of normal services will be spotty..."

It seems like he's trying to work us all up into a frenzy again similar to what happened over this past summer where many of us were living hour-to-hour during the months of September and October waiting for the complete economic collapse where money would be worthless, worldwide civil wars, millions dead, and tanks rolling down the streets. And to be honest I was taking Xanax on pretty much a daily basis during the months of September and October waiting for the crash. During that period I took time off work to get my license to carry, stockpile water, food and medical supplies to the point that my house even today is filled to the ceilings with boxes of supplies. You can't walk 5 feet in my house without tripping over boxes. We don't have company over the house anymore and my kids can't have friends over because the inside of my house looks like we're hoarders. My kids have asked me if the world is ending because they knew something is wrong with all the stockpiling. I even contemplated having my 11 year old daughter's braces removed last fall because I was so fearful that during the collapse her Orthodontist would be unavailable. Thank God I didn't do that.

So either this guy is telling the truth and we are about to experience a period of hell on earth worse that any previous time in human history or he's a crackpot.

CJ's prophecies and posts, if one isn't a diehard follower, provoke a good degree of anxiety and fear. Neither of those are from God. That's why I think - since I first found his blog in late 2014 - that he either has an overactive imagination or has been deceived by something since childhood.

Also, about CJ's prayer. Isn't the whole point of prayer surrendering to God's will and trusting Him? Hasn't it been that way since the dawn of Christianity? So why do we need a special prayer from CJ, which he seems to promote more than the prayers that have been prayed by the faithful for centuries?

I was recently discussing many of these things with a friend and this is what I concluded:While it is definitely quite possible that Charlie is mistaken/deceived, either way I really do think that a significant economic crisis is soon forthcoming, which could be completely independent of Charlie's take on things. The reason I believe that a economic crisis is likely to occur is due to the fact that quite a few mystics over recent decades have spoken of a upcoming "purification" or "warning", though the prediction of a military conflict with Islam and particularly China seems to be unique to Charlie. Yet, its also quite possible that military conflicts are also part of the purification-warning that many mystics have prophesized about. So really NONE of these predicted things are really unique to Charlie, except the prediction of the miraculous "Rescue" in late 2017.

And so this is why that in my mind even if the financial collapse and military conflicts (ie-"Storm") DOES IN FACT occur in upcoming months, I don't think this would be a sure confirmation of Charlie's purported mission, because quite a few mystics have spoken of this purification-warning, and even quite a few secular commentators have been speaking of a imminent financial crisis for some time now, as most here well know. In fact in recent months the internet is rife with financial collapse warnings from some very legitimate secular sources. And so the absolute confirmation would only come with the miraculous "Rescue" in late 2017, yet one would have to concede that a financial crisis and military conflict with Islam and China would really be quite a "guess" if such were to occur. However, the predicted miraculous Rescue in late 2017 is obviously on a completely higher (heavenly) level.

And so, as for preparing materially for these predicted events by setting aside some food, water etc., I personally think it is very prudent to do so, given that numerous mystics and visionaries apart from Charlie have predicted this warning-purification, let alone the prospect of regional weather catastrophes and personal events (loss of job etc) that occasionally befall us. Up until just recently, our predecessors had pantries full of food, "just i case" hard times came. And nowadays, most of us spend a good deal of money each month on car insurance and house insurance "just in case" an accident or calamity befalls us. I see prudent "prepping" in the same vein. But it must be done thoughtfully and in moderation, without going overboard or in excess.

Again just my opinion, for whatever it is worth.May God bless all who visit here.Glenn Dallaire

I would like to add one more very important point, and this one is specifically concerning Charlie:

One thing that is really not brought up enough in these discussions is that Charlie's purported prophetic message is primarily and essentially one of HOPE and not destruction. Those who have read his blog or listened to his conferences know how often he speaks of how "God has a plan for us" and that "God plans are for our reclamation, not our destruction" and how often he specifically proclaims a "miraculous Rescue in late 2017 through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary".

So, at its heart, his is truly a message of hope, encouragement and trust in God.

Dear Steve. I just wanted to apologise to you and express my heartfelt concern and sympathy for the appalling way CJ used and ridiculed your post above about the anxiety you experienced as a result of his warnings, writings, presentations about a storm. What a hurtful thing for him to do! To say someone else's distress was laughable and annoying and then roundly criticise the person to try to sure up his own position publicly. I found it truly disgusting. I felt compelled to let you know that Jesus is not laughing at your distress nor does he find you annoying. Put your trust in Him, He loves you and your family. Follow His advice. I disagree with Glenn and therefore CJ. Man does not live by bread alone, Jesus is the true bread. We do not know what is going to happen so it is more prudent to trust in God than "prep. "This post is another piece of evidence that CJ is far from authentic. He says he is not predicting a storm but that we are in it but then goes on to predict that it is going to get worse so we had all better watch out and be prepared. Contradictory. I will pray for you and your family Steve.

That "laughable and annoying" statement that Charlie made struck me also. I personally did not think it was appropriate and seems to me to be lacking in charity. I understand Charlie may have been ruffled a bit and wanted to reply to Steve comments, but in my opinion he could have left this particular statement out.

And Steve, I wanted to thank you for your sincere comment and for sharing your perspective and experiences here. I sincerely appreciate hearing everyone's thoughts and perspectives.

Steve, your reactions certainly weren't laughable or annoying to me. I have a diagnosed anxiety disorder, so I know where you're coming from.

Even though Charlie keeps stressing that they're not the heart of his mission, he still speaks about, as he puts it, "bluntly fearful" things. I have a hard time understanding - probably because of my anxiety disorder - how he is "baffled" by people going on Xanax, for example.

Something bugs me about the real-time nature of all this. Yes, we're in the Internet age but does it bother anyone else that from the comfort of our homes we can now pick up our iPhone and immediately checkout the latest message from beyond the veil? I find this phenomenon especially true with Medjugorje. Here followers of Christ can have messages from the BVM delivered right to their Inbox every morning! Really? Is this what our spiritual life has become?

One of the previous commenters said that regardless of whether these prophetic warnings are true or untrue, it keeps them praying. As I'm getting older I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the type of spirituality that we need to get ourselves all worked up over possible Three Days of Darkness, Illuminations of Conscience, Chastisements, Storms, shifting magnetic poles, etc., in order to rouse us to prayer. Ditto with a spirituality revolved around bleeding statues, bleeding hosts, stigmatas, bilocations, incorrupt saints, etc. And yes, I realize I'm saying this on a "Mystics of the Church blog, but what ever happened to "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed"?

In the 1970s I followed Fr. Gobbi. I read his messages every day, and I had tapes of his talks that I listened to in my car whenever I was driving. I was obsessed with his messages. When he visited the US I followed him like a groupie to the point that one time I even snuck into the sacristy at a Church where he was about to say Mass and knelt before him to ask his blessing. Fr. Gobbi's writings had multiple Imprimaturs and Fr. Gobbi even said Mass with Pope St. JPII. And yet his prophecy about the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart before the year 1998 never materialized. I made many major life decisions in the 1980s, in terms of my career and in deferring marriage, because of what I believed to be the impending Triumph.

We're told not to despise prophecy. But does that mean that everyone who puts up a blog and claims to have conversations with heaven is to be given the benefit of the doubt? When Our Lady appeared at Fatima she was a woman of few words. And she was a woman of even fewer words in the Gospel. And in terms of the Fatima seers, they said what they said and that was it.

Thanks Steve for sharing a bit of your spiritual journey here. As for my own personal experiences with purported mystics and visionaries, prior to Charlie I have personally known three other mystics, two of which eventually received a negative judgement from the Church, which in one case was actually quite a spiritually painful experience for me, since I was quite close to this person. And so now that I have met with and conversed with Charlie quite a bit, I would say he is now the the fourth purported mystics that I have got to know personally. And I can honestly state that my experience in this area has taught me that sooner or later God reveals the truth concerning such persons, either through a official decision from the Church, or if one is sincere and asks God to know the truth, I believe God will eventually give an individual sign(s) and necessary discernement that they may know whether the person is authentic, or not. Now, in regards to Charlie specifically, as I have mentioned a few times before specifically concerning whether Charlie has been sent or not, one thing is for sure is that due to the specific time frame of predictions he has given, very soon events (or lack thereof) will give solid evidience one way or another.

It is interesting that we are discussing this matter of private revelation on the very day that the Church is celebrating "Divine Mercy Sunday"---a feast which as most readers here know primarily stems from the private revelation of Jesus given to the mystic St. Faustina Kowalska. And so we have this great feastday today that essentially stems from a private revelation. Yet if one looks in the Church missal for today (or the missalette in the pews of most Catholic Churches) this day is listed as "The Second Sunday of Easter OR Divine Mercy Sunday"---the "OR" is essential because as many here know that with all private revelations one is not required to believe or give assent to any of them, even the Church recognised ones like Fatima, Lourdes etc...

Steve rightly points out theat Scripture tells us "not to despise prophesy" and like with today's feast of Divine Mercy we have one the one hand the potential for private revelations to be very inspiring, edifying and spiritually beneficial, while on the other hand we have the potential of being misled by ones that are not (yet) Church approved.

And so we are at times faced with a dilemma when it comes to mystics and visionaries, both living and deceased who have not been recognised by the Church. With this, the mistake that some make is that they dismiss such persons outright and off handedly, without a just hearing or sincere discernment. This, as you know, is what many of the Pharisees, Scribes and others did concerning Jesus, and it was a very tragic mistake, as we all well know (not to compare Jesus to alleged visionaries, but the thrust of the matter is the same). And so, I personally am careful to try not to make such a mistake and therefore I try to give such persons the benefit of a neutral (albeit a very cautious and prudent) hearing.

Once again, this is just my opinion and perception of things, for whatever it is worth. May God bless you and your loved ones,Glenn Dallaire

Glenn, in my opinion, there's a big difference between Charlie Johnston and visionaries such as St. Faustina and Sr. Mary Mildred Neuzil (for me personally, Our Lady of America is far more credible than what was told to CJ, and even that doesn't have full Church approval, 60 years later). He responds very poorly to criticism, as you yourself noted a couple of posts above. He has a very large ego and also seems fairly full of himself...take a look at what he says with his most recent post, "I Proclaim the Rescue". Just the title alone is telling. He then goes on to say that if he shut up, there would be no one else offering any hope of rescue. Really? What about the probably hundreds of millions of prayers offered for the intentions of Our Lady of Fatima - peace in the world?

I've always come away from CJ's blog feeling like it's a love letter to him. He's always talking about how wonderful he is. The frequent posters reinforce this to him, and like I said, people who offer criticism are spoken to rather tartly and/or dismissed. This is very different behavior than that of the Fatima seers and St. Faustina, among others. That's why I think there's something not quite right about this whole thing.

i agree with the above comment. im new to all of this, but after reading his site, it makes me sick to my stomach. i hope God Almighty doesnt have this grandiose, condemning personality that this Charlie man does. really, it makes me nauseous. especially with the comments, they seem to be cult like followers. i may be wrong but something is very amiss here. they all like to brag about the prayers they say, the candles they light. it gives a very bad name to true catholicism. remember guys, this man was a snake handling protestant, he said this hisself. his temper is what has turned me off and how he has the audacity to post comments he disagrees with only to scandalize and humiliate. i cant imagine sr Lucia doing this or any of our beloved seers. he is false. nothing he has predicted has happened and will not. he loves the attention and the free air fare, free survival food, free housing, free truck and free everything. open your eyes guys.

Charlie put himself out there for the public to discern. And I discerned that there's something not quite right with this whole business. I don't ever remember any of the approved messages over the last century saying "people should get a grip and quit trying to tear down a person who accurately foresaw this long ago and now – with equal accuracy – assures all that God has NOT abandoned us. If I shut up, the Storm remains and who is there to give credible hope of Rescue?”

Archbishop Aquila strongly advised prudence and caution regarding his messages, and that particular message clearly advises neither of those things. Stop criticizing Charlie, listen to Charlie, believe in Charlie. Is that something a Church approved message ever contained? No!

It's wiser and safer to stick with what the Church promotes than still not approved seers.

I stopped following Charlie Johnston's blog today due to his response to Steve's comment and his follow-up response posted this morning. I'm not posting this anonymously because I'm not afraid to say that Mr. Johnston's uncharitable posts toward Steve, and other commenters not in a position to help Mr. Johnston personally, strike me as not coming from God but coming from his own ego. I have also been alarmed at Mr. Johnston's advice to his readers regarding financial matters based upon his prophecy. After reading his blog for several months and doing my own research, I don't find Mr. Johnston to have the humility or mercy shown by true visionaries such as St. Bernadette or Sister Lucia. Jesus is Mercy itself and Mr. Johnston has not shown either mercy or humility toward those that question him for any reason.

I completely agree with you Lisa. It was the last nail in the coffin for me with regard to CJ. Just because someone uses a screen name doesn't mean you haven't hurt them a lot. Just because you think God wants you to warn people about something doesn't mean you do so by ridiculing them and calling their statements, behaviour and feelings funny and annoying. Romans 13:10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.Titus 3:2 to slander no one, to avoid fighting, and to be kind, always showing gentleness to all people.

Matthew 7:12 In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets.

Mr. Johnston's world is centered around "I,I,and I. "I am going to do this, and I am going to do that, and I think this, and I think that." Very much of what he discusses, centers around himself. He strikes me as someone who is very attention seeking. I don't remember him ever sharing,or witnessing, either in writing, or in video, (in relation to his supposed visitations by Jesus, or the Blessed Mother),how wonderful THEY are. Wouldn't a true prophet want others to hear how loving, and kind Our Lady, is, and how merciful, and compassionate, and loving Jesus is? Instead, Charlie speaks of his messages to his followers, and others, but where is his witnessing praise of God? He talks to others about not displaying vanity, and yet he appears to display this, himself. A true prophet of God is human, yes,and has human weaknesses, but if he or she is truly a prophet, and has truly been receiving visitations from God,shouldn't their lives be wholly reflecting those grace-filled qualities, of those holy ones from whom he has had the visitations? I see very little of these grace filled qualities in Charlie. And this is what makes me feel he is not a true prophet of God. He appears to speak a good line, but doesn't appear to be living out those words. On his website, he puts people down, if he doesn't agree with them. A true, holy prophet, or even just a genuine Christian, for that matter, should try to listen to people with an open, loving,heart, not condemning them, and making them feel belittled. Is he acting like Jesus would act? I don't believe so. As I was saying, he appears charismatic with his words, but they mean nothing if they have no "lived out" Christian substance behind them. For those listening to him, it is like going to an empty well, where you you will not find water. Is Charlie the "clashing symbol," found in ICorinthians:13? The way he treats people that he does not agree with, can be extremely unloving, and hurtful, to them. If Charlie wants to be a true prophet of God, and a holy man, and a follower of Jesus,he needs to follow the example of Jesus- in all he says, writes, does, and witnesses. And the most important thing he needs to remember, is that people are not following, him, they are following, JESUS.

I don't understand Charlie's comments in regards to material preparation. I live in New England and for those of you who may be unaware we have a weather phenomenon up here called a nor'easter. And when one occurs in the winter we can be snowed in for days or weeks at a time. I know Glenn lives in New England but I think he might be a bit young to remember the blizzard of 1978. Now as a father of young kids, when the local meteorologists forecast 2 or 3 or more feet of impending snow I do what every good father does. I immediately run out to the supermarket and get enough food to see my family through. I make sure my car and snow blower have full tanks of gas, that we have sufficient batteries, flashlights, and firewood, and if we're low on our prescriptions I get to the drug store as well.

If Charlie is correct, when the "Storm" he speaks about is in full fury each of us may be without food, medicine, heat or even benefit of local law enforcement for up to 20 months depending on when the Storm peaks in relation to the rescue. I know God wants us to rely on Him but why would it not be prudent for a parent to prepare for this Storm in the SAME WAY we prepare for a nor'easter? Meaning we plan for the worse case scenario of 20 months of food, medicine, heat or civil government. This doesn't mean we stockpile, lock n' load, and then think we're safe and can kick back. I've stockpiled and I can assure you I don't feel like I'm safe.

Certainly during a nor'easter when my wife and I are home bound with the kids and have sufficient food to ride out the blizzard I don't stop saying my office or rosary. And I'm aware that despite my material preparations God may still allow our roof to collapse from the weight of the snow, or for us to lose power, and therefore we'd need to abandon the safety I attempted to create for my family by hunkering down in our home.

St. Ignatius said something along the lines of pray as if everything depends on God, but then work as if everything depends on you. If that's the case, it would seem to support us making SIGNIFICANT material preparations for what promises to be the worst storm in human history. But also remembering to depend on God to see us through. I don't see how this is any different than preparing for a nor'easter.

Over the course of the last year or so, I've read nearly everything Mr. Johnston has published on his blog. At one time I had concluded that this was his primary message -- Acknowledge God, take the next right step, be a source of hope. I noted that, considering he is a prolific writer, he chose not to name his blog The Rescue, The Storm, or any other allusion to dire-sounding sub-topics that constitute a large part of the blog's contents. In essence what his spiritual "slogan" is advising is prayer-driven Christian action. So to act on his message, I've decided to refrain from reading any more of what he, or his fairly small group of regular commenters, has to say, and devote that time to prayer.

Several secondary issues have raised "little yellow flags" to me. Please note that I DID NOT SAY RED FLAGS, ONLY YELLOW ONES. One of the most bothersome is the frequent mention of the nameless three priest directors of the past two decades, and recently the "bishop" commenting under a pseudonym. It seems pointless to me to divulge that there are priests and bishops who are giving a certain measure of credence to what he says, yet not disclose who they are exactly. In my opinion, it's as if the mere mention of these nameless clerics in the picture is somehow supposed to lend a nod of legitimacy to the messages. And IF that is the case, IF telling of the clerics is meant to lend legitimacy to (what I discern to be) Mr. Johnston's primary one, the one he named his blog after, by association that legitimizing extends to the dire-sounding ones, too.

Is Acknowledging God, taking the next right step, and being a source of hope to others really what the blog is primarily all about? Or is it the Rescue? Is it the Storm? In my opinion Mr. Johnston was not exactly a blazing source of hope to Steve, who by his own admission was reacting to information about the Storm!

Conflicting messages abound, discernment mandatory.

NB: Thank you Glenn for your consistent and rational approach to mysticism that is in full agreement with Holy Mother Church!

"Is Acknowledging God, taking the next right step, and being a source of hope to others really what the blog is primarily all about? Or is it the Rescue? Is it the Storm?"

In my humble opinion, I think it's about all 3 things, with emphasis on the Rescue. Anyone with "eyes to see" knows we're in a mess right now, a storm if you like. Mr. Johnston seems to be trying to let us know how to navigate thru these days that are upon us, with emphasis on acknowledging God, taking the next right step & being that sign of hope for others until we are "Rescued".....I've read all his posts, but I don't bother so much with the comments now because they stress me out at times. I don't envy Mr. Johnston having to deal with what we see there sometimes, let alone what we don't know about behind the scene....My interpretation of his main message is that we have to take responsibility for our own actions, thru prayerful discernment (acknowledging God), acting in good faith, and not falling into despair (being a sign of hope). None of us are perfect or can know what is to happen, but, in my opinion, we have to take responsibility as individuals for what we do or do not do. I got caught up in the LttW & The Harbinger stuff last year like alot of people. I never blamed either of those messengers for my actions. I did what I did. What's the point in blaming someone for what we ourselves do of our own free volition?

I still follow Mr. Johnston; the blog comments not so much...the whole squirrel thing gets on my nerves. I saw an "unrelated to the blog" comment the other day that kinda rang true to me: "Be decisive. Right or wrong, make a decision. The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who couldn't make a decision. Unknown"

Just remember, when you make a decision & act on it, or not, you own it. It's no different than stocking supplies for bad weather that never comes. I, for one, don't see the point in blaming the weatherman, who ultimately was only trying to help....

Thanks to everyone for their comments thus far. Since there have been a number of recent comments lately it is time for my occasional "weigh in", for whatever it is worth.

First, as to the comment about Charlie's three priest spiritual directors, I have corresponded with one of them quite often over the past year and a half, and here is their position concerning Charlie AS I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE. Essentially, their ONLY role and responsibility is to offer Charlie private/personal spiritual direction, and they do NOT get directly involved in any of Charlie's purported prophesies or his alleged prophetical mission. They feel that ALL judgement and discernment in this area is solely the responsibility of the local Bishop. And so essentially their position as I understand it is that they are there strictly to offer Charlie private spiritual direction and that is it; Charlie alone is solely responsible for all that he does and says.

Now, as to setting aside some food and provisions: As I understand it from statements of Charlie which I personally have both heard and read, he firstly insists that it is not absolutely necessary or essential to do so, and that one should do so only if one feels called to. While he accepts "prudent" setting aside of some food supplies, it should be done in moderation and in limited proportion to each persons own personal situation (ie. living alone vs. large family). He insists that one should do so ONLY if one can afford to only AFTER paying all of one normal bills and other financial obligations. He especially insists that the "spirit" in doing so must be one of detachment--that is, if one chooses to set aside some food and provisions, one must do so with the intention of readily sharing these supplies with others (particularly like one's neighbors) if a situation arises that calls for it.

Now, as to my own personal thoughts on setting aside some reasonable food provisions (again, for whatever it is worth), first and foremost it is imperative to note that Charlie is by far NOT the only person who has warned of a Storm/Purification/Warning with upcoming economic and societal upheaval. Quite a few purported mystics have done so in recent decades, and in these current times quite a few secular economists are sounding the trumpet of impending economic upheaval. So we are not simply talking about heeding the warnings of one person, that being Charlie alone.

If such were to happen, some feel that God will take care of everything, even all material considerations and necessities, and they need not set aside anything. I only know that God normally requires us to take responsibility and do our part in caring for ourselves and our loved ones. I understand that for those who are single or for couples who are only responsible for themselves, if such persons choose not to set anything aside, desiring to trust completely in the providence of God, well that's their decision and it affects only themselves.

HOWEVER, for those who have children to care for, well, it is my opinion that given all the warnings from a wide variety of persons and outlets both religious and secular, I think that one would be very imprudent not to set aside at least some foodstuffs and provisions for those in whom one is responsible for, so long as it is done in moderation in relation to one's family size, without going "overboard".

yes, i too have chosen not to read the comments, i prefer to read mr johnstons articles, all though, most of the time, i still have tongue in cheek.

as for the person saying above that we shouldnt be judging, well that seems to be a very liberal and common politically correct comment. this is all about discernment. i have had a few friends in the past that mimicked mr johnston almost to a tee. they claimed they were hearing from God, they were living in poverty because God wanted them too, guess what, people and more people started paying for anything they needed, providing food, sending gifts, paying mortgages...all because they thought innocently if they believed and provided for this person that had a special connection with God, well they then would be blessed. please look up the definition of a cult. mr johnston will fare very well, and is now, more than most throughout this so called storm. he knows what he is doing.

"St. Ignatius said something along the lines of pray as if everything depends on God, but then work as if everything depends on you."

I don't know if St. Ignatius is the one who said it or not, but my life really turned around for the better when I began to keep this adage in mind and follow it. I have realized that, for me, it is the path to Him, and I will continue to do it and recommend this adage to others. God helps me enormously when I get up and DO SOMETHING about my situation, not as if I have any idea of how to fix things, but somehow until I begin to take action in a positive direction not much gets better.

So if there is a bad collapse coming, I will continue this practice: praying as if everything depends on God (because it does) and working as if everything depended on me alone. It works.

As for Charlie Johnston: after I considered the Bishop's statement, I thought the best action for me is to avoid his blog completely. I do not know what exactly bothers me about him, but I decided if the Church recommends caution, it is best for me to let those who are more knowledgeable about these things lead me, and like a girl whose mom cautions her about certain friends, to take it to heart and maybe go farther than recommended, and just end the friendship. I would rather be safe than sorry.

friends whom are discerning: you may want to read this article http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2015/04/a-closer-look-at-marie-paule-giguere.htmlto understand a little more about Glenn who runs this blog. I think this is the mystic that he has had a painful experience with and yet he says from the article"I will endeavor to provide an informative, and at the same time neutral and unopinionated presentation of the facts" - See more at: http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2015/04/a-closer-look-at-marie-paule-giguere.html#sthash.f72mhyuh.dpuf

Glenn also says that he is neutral about Charlie Johnston but his opinion shows through in his responses about Charlie Johnston. When the Ecclesiastical authority has warned the faithful, they should run, not walk away from the 'prophet' and throw out any books, tapes, pictures or items associated with the person so that a stronghold doesn't take effect like may have happened in the case of the Canadian Army of Mary woman.

In terms of preparing for a disaster we know that Jesus never told us to store things. He did say to store up treasures in heaven, He taught us in prayer: give us this day our daily bread (not next year's bread), he told the parable about the rich man that wanted to build granaries so that he wouldn't have to worry about food and the Lord called him a fool and said that that very night his life would be required of him, Jesus told his apostles to carry very little with them in their travels and the list goes on and on. Have a strong faith and then Divine Providence will take over when you run short. If I didn't care about you and Glenn, I wouldn't write this comment.

Reading through your commentary there seems to be a veiled accusation against me in regards to my past experience with the Army of Mary. The thing is, what you seem to be calling into question concerns a matter that I have been very forthright and open about, as one can readily read in the two articles I wrote about Marie-Paule Giguere and the Army of Mary, one of which you linked to. My obedience to the Church in this and in all things, and my emphasis and insistence upon always doing so, completely vindicates me of your veiled accusation of myself somehow being being disobedient, which is what you seem to be alluding to. So, instead of trying to bring forth some kind of defense, I'll simply let my past actions of obedience as documented in my articles on this matter stand for itself.

Concerning my position in regards to Charlie Johnston: My obligation as I see it in hosting this website is to bring forth the facts in a completely objective and truthful manner, in the spirit of "We report, you discern".

Now, with this in mind, the problem I have encountered in a few of the commentaries here and especially in the commentaries beneath in the article I wrote specifically about Charlie Johnston it has been readily obvious and apparent that there are a few folks who are steadfastly against Charlie, and try to raise false matters against him, trying for example to state that the Church, through the local Bishop, has somehow condemned Charlie, which is definitely NOT the case (just to use one example). As I have pointed out in the article above, the Statement from the Archdiocese does not sanction Charlie in any way, and leaves him free to continue to write and speak publicly concerning his purported prophetic message and mission, though at the same time one must also acknowledge the strong cautionary tone of the Statement, a fact which I also bring forth quite readily in the article above.

So the point is, it seems that because I endeavor to bring forth the facts concerning Charlie objectively and truthfully in the two articles and comments that I have written, it seems there are a few commenters here who see this as that I am favoring and supporting Charlie, of which I am not. I simply defend the facts, which as host of this website I believe I am obligated to do. And truth be told, while I personally have a few "yellow flags" or "concerns" myself in regards to Charlie, but nothing solid worthy of dismissing him, and so I remain neutral waiting upon the predicted events. Yet, those who are trying to twist the Archdiocesan Statement in a way to attempt to show that Charlie has somehow been condemned by the local Bishop is simply incorrect, and so if I am personally seen by a few persons as favoring Charlie simply because I am defending the facts, well then so be it. I definitely have no problem whatsoever with those who have chosen to dismiss Charlie and his purported prophesies. For sure, one need not accept any private revelations, and one would do well to be very, very cautious when discerning them.

In short, the Archdiocesan Statement is strongly cautionary, but NOT condemnatory, and so that is my own position also.

So Charlie Johnston regards sexual harassment by a high ranking official (Governor Bentley) which can have long-term adverse effects on its victims and is grossly disrespectful of women as a "stumble." He still regards the person with affection and no word is said about the damage done to his victims. Comparing this with Jesus' opinions on such matters27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

It gives pause for thought. Hard to believe this is someone who allegedly has spoken to Jesus, Angels and saints.

As I understand it, the issue with Governor Bentley was not sexual harassment but an affair. I'd be cautious about reducing people as being the sum total of their sin. Sure, objectively an affair is a serious (mortal) sin but whether subjectively it's a serious sin in the Governor's case only God can judge. I think there are a number of valid concerns one can have with the purported message of Charlie Johnston. However, I think Charlie relating the compassion Governor Bentley showed his family in response to his mother's funeral is not relevant to assessing the validity of his claims.

Steve, the problem I have with this assertion is one that I mentioned in Glenn's other article on Charlie.

Charlie is putting himself out there as a messenger of God. He expects us to take his claims seriously. However, he stated that he was an "aggressive dater of the full-service variety". This was going on during some of his visitations. Whether or not this is mortal sin (i. e. meeting the three conditions necessary for it to be so) is between him and God. But it IS serious sin. He calls it a disorder. And the 1978 norms regarding apparitions state that committing grave sin when someone is receiving messages is a strike against their case. That is why I suspect Anonymous above you has a problem with that particular post.

I am trying to PRAY for Charlie. For the Lord would want us to pray for him. Whether he is a man suffering from delusions-(his claims of visitations and messages from an angel, Jesus, or Mary), or whether he is an ego-centered, power monger, that longs to be the center of attention, or whether he will be shown to be a true prophet, who displays great human weaknesses,ie,the unkind way he can treat those who question him, or disagree with him, he is still a child of God,and he himself, is worthy of God's redemption, mercy, and love. When Jesus walked this earth, He dealt with all kinds of people- many who sinned, and fell short of the glory of God- but nonetheless,Jesus tried to reach out to them, and give them the message of His mercy, His redemption, and His salvation. And many He reached- although not all. Many would not heed Him. Jesus got angry in the temple, as He overturned the tables, and He let the Pharisees know just what He thought of their unholy behavior. And yet, even to those, I'm sure Jesus' hope was that they would come to hear, and live, the "good news" of the Gospel, that He,in love, was trying to share with them- a message that He displayed, even unto his death on the cross. Praying for Charlie does not mean we have to agree with him, or believe in his private revelations, or be a follower of him. But our being FOLLOWERS of JESUS, I believe that Jesus would want us to pray for him. And if Charlie is on the wrong path,the Lord will SHOW Charlie, by means of our prayers, and by the breaking through of God's own providential truth, and guidance. Of course, Charlie has to be open to,this, or be able to "see" this. May the peace, and love, of our Lord Jesus, be with you, all, my brothers and sisters in Christ!

I have a lengthy list of people I keep in prayer, and trust me, there are people on it that make me grit my teeth. But like you said, just because *I* don't like them or fell out with them is no reason not to pray for them!

The twelve apostles were all called by God to a very extraordinary mission, and after many years eleven of them eventually became great Saints through the fulfillment of their apostolic mission, but can we say that they were all pillars of virtue in the early parts of their apostolate? It seems to me that the Gospels reveal that some of them were not exactly heroic in virtue in the early years when they were with Jesus. Something to consider, I think.

Not sure what you mean Glenn. The apostles travelled the ancient world with few belongings at risk of their own lives, went forth and preached the good news, baptised, healed in Jesus name all immediately after receiving the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. They helped establish the Church and ministered to Gentiles and Jews. Several were martyred. That seems like heroic virtue in the early days of ministry.

Moreover these are not the early days for Charlie Johnston. He is supposed to have been conversing with heavenly visitors since childhood. Yet even just recently he publicly ridiculed someone who questioned him and minimised the sexual immorality of an official without acknowledging the damage done to this official's wife. I think that is something to consider.

Yes, the apostles, except for Judas, all eventually became heroes of the faith. Yet some of them fought over who was the greatest, one betrayed Jesus and later hung himself, another denied Jesus, another denied the resurrection until Jesus had to prove it to him, etc...

The point is that were not born Saints, they eventually became Saints.

Now, in regards to Charlie and some of the concerns that have been brought forth here and there, up to this point we don't see any religious authorities or priests lining up to condemn him over such "evidence". Personally, and this is my opinion up to this point, I don't think the valid concerns that have been brought forth here and there are sufficient proof or grounds to show that Charlie is not authentic. In other words, the concerns thus far are not that significant or overwhelming, and so I personally wouldn't dig my heels in either way at this point, though in the upcoming months there will be ample solid evidence one way or the other based on his prophesies/predictions.

Now, if we had the Archdiocese or even priests raising significant concerns giving evidence to dismiss Charlie's claims, then this would be a whole different matter, but such is not the case up to this point. The Archdiocese has simply urged caution, while leaving Charlie completely free to continue to speak and write in favor of his purported prophetic mission and message, apparently much to the dismay of those who would like to see him condemned.

Glenn, I don't think opposition to Charlie is as much as "wanting to see him condemned" as "hoping his prophecies don't come true".

As for myself, my line of thinking about what Charlie foresees is the same as you posted: "And so while I think that he is very sincere (my note: I think the same despite many concerns I have about him and his mission), I am hoping that he is very sincerely mistaken, that humanity need not undergo such an severe and extensive conflagration.

Like many others, I recognize that in many ways the current spiritual state of humanity is in moral decline, however I personally am hoping that God will be able to steer this boat back into a better direction without such radical maneuvers such as Charlie foresees."

Hi L Spinelli,Yes! Good point. I personally am REALLY hoping that his prophesy concerning the "Storm" does NOT come true, and I imagine that this is the case for most everyone.

Though, concerning this I have actually read more than one commenters elsewhere say "Bring it on!"....and I immediately said "Forgive them Lord for they know not what they are asking for."Maybe because they have some firearms, cases of bullets and a basement full of beans and rice that I guess a few folks think they "got this". Though I'm sure most folks like you and I are rightly terrified of the prospect of such a thing, and are really hoping that Charlie is wrong.

I saw the same "bring it on!" comments. Also, like you, I still hope God will turn this thing around. (Which is one of my issues with Charlie. He keeps stressing that we NEED the Storm. Any faithful Catholic or other religious-minded folk know and see that society is in the dumpster, but what Charlie predicts is indeed too dire.) Which is why, for me, the solution that Msgr. Pope presented over a year ago is much more hopeful and inspiring. (He also cautions people not to ask to "bring it on"!)

12/30/14 Pray. And before you exultantly say, “Bring on the destruction!” please consider that this is no “made-for-TV movie.” Think about how instantly different our lives would be! Please consider the bloodshed and loss of life. Again, would you be ready for a world with no electricity, no Internet, and no central government with a Bill of Rights? Are you ready to live without roads, running water, and trash collection? Repentance is a far better solution. So pray for a miracle! It doesn’t have to end in destruction. Jerusalem could have repented, and we still can.

L Spinelli, I am in complete agreement with your comment above. I, too, had read Msgr. Charles Pope's post. It IS inspiring and hopeful, because repentance and prayer is something that every person can do. If every single human being would just do their own little part to repent and pray more.....only GOD knows what effect on the future that spiritual activity would have!

I've worked in mental health for many years, and what I see in Charlie, is a man who appears unable to take responsibility for the hurts that he places on other people. I therefore see someone who is lacking in his own good self esteem. People that have healthy self esteem, can take responsibility for their actions, and especially the negative ones, that cause others hurt. It appears that Charlie can never be wrong. And that is not a healthy, balanced, way to be living. It reflects a kind of instability. And even aside, from this, where is the kindness, and holiness, that should be shown, by Charlie, toward those who disagree with him? Even if one wasn't looking at Charlie in terms of his straight mental health, where are those admirable qualities that he should be displaying as a supposed prophet of God, that reflect the kindness, compassion, understanding, and love of Christ, that should automatically accompany such a person? This is what makes me not want to put any credence in what Charlie says. I do not feel drawn toward Charlie in terms of his spirituality, because I do not see him living out the Gospel, in the unkind way he reacts to, and treats people who question him, or disagree with him. Charlie needs to reflect more of Jesus.

I think what Our Lord is saying, to me, is that we have all spent enough time, being distracted by the messages of Charlie Johnston. Let us, instead, look to Our Blessed Mother, and her already approved messages of the Church, at Lourdes, Fatima, and Akita, to name a few. Let us pray the rosary, and pray, in general, as she has asked us to do. Let us follow her Son Jesus, and the truth of the Holy Scriptures. Let us continue to live kind, and charitable lives, and receive the sacraments of the Eucharist, and of Confession. All of THESE will prepare us for the future, (whatever it will hold). And our faith, and love of Jesus, will see us through! Praise be to the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!

The simple fact is that most claimed revelations are false. It is extremely foolish, therefore, to devote oneself to propagating a disapproved or dubious message, which might actually come from the Father of Lies. If one day you see its falsity for yourself, you will regret it enormously, and be unable to undo the harm done to others. On the other hand, there are more than enough approved messages to spread, if you want to spread them. It is better to keep to what is countenanced by the Church, than to go it alone and risk being a dupe of the devil.

- Father Peter Joseph, Chancellor of the Maronite Diocese of Australia

I did some in-depth reading about discerning private revelations recently, including works by the late Father Benedict Groeschel. The two factors which weighed greatly towards the possibility of a vision being authentic are obedience and humility. Charlie Johnston is definitely lacking humility, as people saw and noted in the last few weeks. That's a very large, madly waving, red flag.

If the "storm" does not come beforehand, absolute proof will come on Presidential inauguration day Jan 20th 2017 which will reveal the truth concerning Charlie's revelations for sure. Either the storm will come as a confirmation, or things will proceed as usual, the inauguration will occur, and Charlie's revelations will be shown to be false.

For Charlie himself wrote recently:"charliej373 says:April 23, 2016 at 11:38 pmFor what it’s worth, I did say and maintain that I have been told that Obama would not finish his full term, but would live to fully convert long after he had left office. That is by revelation and is a specific thing I must be judged on. So while Chuck was wrong on the details, he was right on the fundamental point he was making as to the accountability I have."

Charlie still hasn't gotten the message. You don't call people "fools" and "halfwits," as he did in his most recent post, on his website. It just isn't holy. True prophets, who have been chosen by God, show love, and compassion, for people. God loves ALL people, and would want his TRUE prophets, to show the love, kindness, and understanding, that He, Jesus, would show. Is Charlie so lacking in insight, or so imperfect in nature, that he is not able to REFRAIN from the uncharitable terms he applies to people? Charlie, if you want to be seen as one of God's holy prophets, and if you truly ARE one of His holy prophets, you need to SHOW THIS in your CHARACTER. No one is going to BELIEVE, you, or find you credible, if you don't actively show holiness. HOLINESS needs to be lived out- in EVERY WAY. Charlie, when it comes to, holiness, you cannot "pick and choose." For God will ultimately hold you accountable. For it says in First Corinthians:13:2: If I have the gift of prophecy, and comprehend all mysteries, and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love,I am nothing. It goes on to say in verse four, that love is patient, and kind, that it is not pompous, or inflated, or rude, and that it is not quick tempered. And lastly, LOVE NEVER FAILS. Charlie needs to try to LIVE OUT the love that is talked about in this Chapter of Corinthians, when it comes to others.

"Is Charlie so lacking in insight, or so imperfect in nature, that he is not able to REFRAIN from the uncharitable terms he applies to people? Charlie, if you want to be seen as one of God's holy prophets, and if you truly ARE one of His holy prophets, you need to SHOW THIS in your CHARACTER. No one is going to BELIEVE, you, or find you credible, if you don't actively show holiness. HOLINESS needs to be lived out- in EVERY WAY. Charlie, when it comes to, holiness, you cannot "pick and choose." For God will ultimately hold you accountable."

4/24/16 The problem is in the last few decades, a lot of people have decided they can open a discussion with a public figure by going at them with a pole axe and demanding a servile answer. That never cut any ice with me, when I was in politics, writing for political and cultural journals, or now. If someone comes snarling at me, kicks me in the crotch, and calls it a “question,” I will gladly kick right back and call it an “answer.” Every time. I am not about to change that.

But if someone begins their conversation with me with a snarl, they will usually get a snarl back. I am as entitled to receive common courtesy as my readers are.

What Charlie saw as "snarling" was people disagreeing with what he said. While some of these posters were tart and pointed, they weren't at all like what passes for "commentary" at most blogs and sites, which is very much like the Wild West. This is also a large red flag.

So, its almost May 2016. I am so sad and disillusioned over this Charlie guy. I wanted so to believe, but I now can truely not stand to read his comments. Its all about hisself, boasting, etc. I believe he has a mean vindictive streak in him and we can all see that in his comments if someone is a tad bit more intelligent than him. I am so weary and tired of this. He does not offer hope,he offers despair in a twisted, sinister sorta way. I will never visit his site again. His comments alone, like one commentator said, well...they make me sick to my stomach. This is not of God. If someone kicks him in the groin, he will kick right back?? Oh, Lord help us.

Charlie J said: So talk as ugly as you want. But if, after talking ugly without following the most basic standards of ethics, you cross the line, I will act. That makes it easy for me. I only have to correct the occasional substantive error – and if it goes beyond that, I will leave it to the lawyers. I’m an agreeable fellow, but I am not a chump.

St Stephen said: 59They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!" 60Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them!" Having said this, he fell asleep.

Jesus said: You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' 44"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.…

The writer of 1 Peter said: 1 Peter 3:9Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.

The point of Charlie's prophecy of the Rescue is to give heart to people going through the storm that it's not the end of the world.

Once the Rescue comes, Charlie's prophecies will be validated, yes, but who cares? What's the point? His mission will be over then.

I'd say that what happens between the US elections and inaugauration (sp?)could give us a heads up as to the validity of his prophecy of the coming Rescue. And that could strengthen us to withstand the Storm.

Charlie Johnston, (the supposed prophet, and visionary), does not even compare, to the Church approved visionary children, of Fatima, when it comes to a holy response, when being threatened. The Fatima visionaries were taken by Government officials, were jailed, and were then threatened with death, (being boiled in oil), if they did not deny having seen the Blessed Mother. The children would not deny, this, and spoke the truth of having seen Mary, with an additude of calm and humility. They trusted, God, knew that what they were saying, was true, and knew that God and Mary would hold them secure. So they did not have to fight back. Charlie, on the other, hand, has not been approved by the Church as a true visionary, appears to have a very unholy temper, and is making threats to secure attorneys in reference to anyone that he FEELS is coming against him, unjustly,in any way. And unlike the Fatima children, is doing this with a loud, and proud, kind of an attitude, that is defensive, lacks holiness, and appears to to imply a lack of trust,in, God, to providentially take care of him. Sounds very much like the World,responds, when IT feels wronged. So when I look at the Fatima visionaries, compared to Charlie, I do indeed see two VERY different responses. One response being holy,and one being unholy. And this only confirms, to me, who the true visionaries were.

Hi Anonymous,Thank you for your kind message. No, I have not disappeared! All is well here, thanks be to God.

I have not commented on this subject lately simply because the time of Charlie's predicted events is so very short now and therefore I, like many others, am waiting to see what happens. Time will very soon tell!

Well said indeed!!!!! The truth is, there is and has been a rescue. Jesus died for us. There is our rescue!! Let us accept and live it! And He is still Present to us! Will we be like the disciples staring at the sky after the Ascension? Still looking for signs? Or shall we live connected to the vine and filled by the Holy Spirit, run the good race dependant upon His help? As much as I wish God removes this suffering of our decadent society, He wills us here, now to do something. To practice our faith given to us by Scripture and Tradition. To be faithful. So no more distraction! Fix our eyes on God alone and as Mother Mary said "Do whatever He tells you!"

Dimwit...there was not much in the way of government involvement in McCarthyism either. God, it just wears me out how ill-informed the left is without being the least bit deterred from making it up as they go along. And yes, I well know about HUAC - it was a more toothless version of Title IX and Hate Crime Laws.

And this:

Ha, you would not know science if it bit you on the butt. An economy is not static, it is dynamic...so if you do something that triggers growth, it fuels increased tax revenue. That is why under both Reagan's and Kennedy's tax cuts, tax revenues grew dramatically. But you'd have to actually know something other than the voices in your head. As for ID, I don't want to alarm you, but many paleontologists and physicists have long since quietly abandoned Darwin because not one - not a single one - of the predictions he made that would prove the veracity of his theory of evolution has proved out. Not one. You think Christians are contra evolution because they fear it would disprove God...but Christians know that is one of the many ways God could have formed creation. Christians generally oppose it because the evidence has trashed it. You loony lefties hold to the fairy story because YOU think it disproves God - and you won't let go of your fairy tale regardless of how profound the evidence. What an irony...the only defenders of reason in this unreasonable time are the advocates of faith.

Charlie was a frequent poster to NRO. In the comments section of an article “On Civility,” he had this to say of the author:

Holy cow...I went to the archives to read up some Jason Lee Steorts stuff as I really was not familiar with his point of view until this spat. The guy is unreadable...pretentious, vain, vacuous, rarely coherent, much less insightful...it is like reading philosophy papers from high school sophomores. How the devil did this guy ever get hired to be an intern at NR, much less an editor? Doubt me, go read the archives yourself...this guy is a total embarrassment. Does he have a picture of some NR honcho in a compromising position with a goat? WTF?!

And to a fellow poster, “Guest,” Charlie replied:

He DID do it on his own time, dimwit. If you are not going to pay attention to the facts of the case, don't comment.

I’m sure you all get my drift now. Is this the talk you would expect of a man close to God, who has frequent visits from angels and three spiritual directors? I wouldn't want to sit next to Charlie at a dinner party. But let me add a few more:

From NRO’s article “The IRS and the Tea Party,” three years ago, Charlie to “Guest:”

No he did not. You keep making it up as you go along...I suppose I should expect that. That is exactly how your Messiah does Obamacare…

Joe, it's not a persecution complex when you are actually being persecuted. Your fascist sensibility is showing…

You guys just re-write history to suit what you want it to say, don't you? What do you think you will accomplish? Do you think the mindless, voracious beast that is big government won't come for you later just because you were a good little toadie?

I’m running out of time. But here’s one more comment from a Breitbart article, “Hundreds of Relatives to Kim Jong Un’s Uncle Imprisioned or Executed:”

Oh, why don't we just bill them to all the Obama cronies like GE and Solyndra that the Prez is rewarding from that credit card? Asshat.

So today I was watching Part Two of the Las Vegas visit video". What I heard made my jaw drop. Someone asked about an Evangelical prophecy about Donald Trump becoming President. Well, Charlie paused, laughed, and said this: Protestant prophecy is wishful thinking. He then restated, as he often has at his blog, that God sent him, not them.

I was floored by the hubris. This isn't the first time I've heard something like that coming from him, though. He said way back in April: "If I shut up, the Storm remains and who is there to give credible hope of Rescue?”

It's time to look elsewhere, folks. As has been noted a few times, this "mission" places way too much emphasis on him and not enough on Jesus and Mary. This man is likely caught up in a years-long deception and needs prayer.

On August 28, 2016 in a post entitled "The election...and other potential triggers" Charlie stated:"....If, next January, Barack Obama peacefully hands over the reins of power to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I will declare myself unreliable and go away. But it will not happen that way, for God has appointed that this be a sign to you to fortify you to trust Him and choose the ordinary way to follow Him through the most frightening year for the globe in history. I appeal to you to quit trying to flatter yourself that you have figured out how God is going to accomplish this, for that way leads to destruction. Trust Him and follow Him whatever happens. I have told you true." ------------------

I would add that his post from a few days prior to this entitled "All in" is also very noteworthy.

It is of course completely uncertain at this time as to whether or not his prophesies will come to pass, but for sure one really has to give him a good deal of credit for his courage and faithfulness to this work to which he believes he has been called to, for he has given himself completely to mission over the years, and has staked his entire reputation upon it.

But time will very soon tell whether he truly has been sent by God, or not. Meantime we watch, wait and pray.Glenn Dallaire

Remember that Fr. Gobbi and the Marian Movement of Priests was comprised of 400 Cardinals and Bishops, more than 100,000 priests, and millions of religious and faithful around the world (see http://www.mmp-usa.net/history_old.html).

Fr. Gobbi's book also had multiple Imprimaturs and the Nihil Obstat.

The Marian Movement of Priests also received an Apostolic Blessing from Pope St. John Paul II, and Fr. Gobbi said Mass with St. John Paul II several times on the Pope's private chapel.

And despite all the above, Fr. Gobbi's prediction of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart in 1998 never materialized. Fr. Gobbi has since passed away and his messages were eventually deemed private meditations.

Imagine that...a seer with the backing of 400 Cardinals and Bishops, 100,000 priests, St. John Paul II and Imprimaturs on his writings. And it turned out to be false.

Hi Anonymous,Thanks for your comment. You raise a very important consideration. For sure, a great deal of caution must be used when discerning visionaries/mystics/prophets, because for every authentic one there is many who have been shown not to be authentic.

Charlie Johnston appears to be a profit of doom. He causes many of those who have heard his messages to feel anxious, worried, and concerned. His words are oftentimes unkind, curt,and common. He is kind to those who follow, him, and agree with, him, but can be so unloving to those who don't, or who question him. Would Jesus send us someone like this, to be a messenger? I don't think so. He speaks of an upcoming Storm, where millions of people will be killed. He says that many of us will go hungry, and will lose our homes. He speaks of a huge economic downfall. He claims that there will be riots in the streets. I have always known God to not let us, his people, know about the future. He does this to shield us from worry and anxiety, because our God is merciful. This is why I do not believe what Charlie is saying, or predicting. I prefer to follow Our Blessed Mother, where she has told visionaries, that if we pray, and say the rosary, we can avert any difficult future events. Charlie does not speak of this in his, messages. He claims that the Storm he speaks of, WILL happen, and that there is nothing we can do to change this. I, myself, would prefer to listen, to, and follow Our Blessed Mother. She is always right in everything, and in every way,that she leads us. Thank you Blessed Mother. Our future is in your, hands, and in your Son Jesus', hands. Amen.

The Archdiocese of Omaha sent an email out to people to warn them!!They must think he is crazy, because that is how he comes across in this!!

Alleged visionary Charlie Johnston is scheduled to speak Oct. 1 at Elkhorn High SchoolMr. Johnston claims to have received visions and messages from the Blessed Mother, the Archangel Gabriel and other saints since he was a child. He is known to make public predictions about future events, issuing warnings of worldwide civil war, cancellation of the 2016 U.S. presidential election and a claim that President Barack Obama will not finish his second term. Last year, he also wrote a two-part series on his blog detailing instructions on how to respond if the U.S. government were to begin rounding up conservative Christians and other citizens into detention camps. According to Johnston, God has appointed him to guide Americans through this turmoil to a rescue that will come in late 2017, when the Immaculate Heart of Mary will visibly save the world.

Mr. Johnston’s alleged visions and messages have not been approved, sanctioned, or endorsed by the Church. The Catholic faithful in the Archdiocese of Omaha should approach his appearance with an appropriate level of caution and should continue to place their hope and security in Jesus Christ through the sacraments and the Scriptures.

I don't think anyone would disagree that Charlie's messages have not been approved, sanctioned or endorsed by the Church. Even Charlie isn't making that claim. Nor would anyone disagree that his messages should be approached with caution and that we should place our hope and security in Jesus Christ. The statement from the Archdiocese of Omaha is really no different than the statement from the Archdiocese of Denver. Charlie's own Bishop could have told him to stop public speaking and to close down his blog but his Bishop saw fit to allow him to continue his ministry.

To anonymous who posted the email from the Archdiocese of Omaha. Your statement, "They must think he is crazy, because that is how he comes across in this" is conjecture. If the Archdiocese of Omaha thought Mr. Johnston was "crazy" they would have certainly told the faithful in no uncertain terms not to attend his presentation. Their "warning" as you characterize it was simply prudence and a re-statement of the position of Mr. Johnston's home diocese of Denver where he remains on good terms with Archbishop Aquila.

"....If, next January, Barack Obama peacefully hands over the reins of power to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I will declare myself unreliable and go away. But it will not happen that way, for God has appointed that this be a sign to you to fortify you to trust Him and choose the ordinary way to follow Him through the most frightening year for the globe in history. I appeal to you to quit trying to flatter yourself that you have figured out how God is going to accomplish this, for that way leads to destruction. Trust Him and follow Him whatever happens. I have told you true." -------------------------------

It is very important to note that he did NOT say "elected" but was referring specifically to the inauguration--which is a very important difference, for as you know the election is on November 8, 2016, while the inauguration (which is the key date Charlie is referring to) is on January 20, 2017.

And since this is such an important statement for one's discernment, when Charlie had written this I immediately updated my original article about Charlie with this information. In fact, over the past almost 2 years I have continued to update this original article with key information.

So time will very soon tell! Meantime for now we watch, wait and pray.

Dear Glen, I believe that perhaps you are not impartial when it comes to Charlie Johnston. I had a critical opinion to, share, about Charlie Johnston, and you did not put that post on your blog. Unless, it's still being reviewed by you. But I have seen enough posts, of yours, where you appear to be standing in defense, of Charlie, or pro-Charlie. I believe you are friends, with, him, and perhaps that is why. But you really need to remain TRULY neutral, in fairness to those people who, post, or who are readers of your blog, so that those who do post something about Charlie Johnston, of a questioning or critical nature, will still feel welcome, and supported to post. My post that I hoped you would print, was not uncharitable to Mr. Johnston, but was the truth the way I saw it. Thankyou.

Hi Anonymous,You comment from earlier this evening (on the other article on Charlie Johnston here on this website) was published--all comments here are not held or moderated in any way, and are published immediately, that is, as soon as they are posted. The thing is, on articles that have more than 200 comments, after publishing your comment you have to scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the "newest" link, which will show you the latest comments (in short, only 200 comments are shown per page, with the oldest comments first, so if there is more than 200 comments you need to go to the newest comments).-Hope this clears things up!

As for my own position concerning Charlie Johnston, I continue to remain neutral, awaiting the fulfillment, or the lack thereof, of the predicted events. Time will soon tell!

Thanks again for your comments and may God bless you and your loved ones,Glenn Dallaire

Also, a diocese typically does not approve someone who has not been fully investigated.....that he is permitted to continue on any way and NOT prohibited is.something big and important in the Church....PADRE G

Despite the clear warning of the Archdiocese of Denver not to attempt to spin failed prophecies into legitimate ones, and two huge, failed predictions & as I predicted, Charlie is back. He is a fake prophet. Period. Yet, a cult like following still drinks his cool aid. Tragic. This man needs prayers. His false prophecies are demonic in genesis, made up lies, or mental illness. In any case, this man has returned, as I predicted he would, and is still posting blogs to his cult. Dangerous.

.If, next January, Barack Obama peacefully hands over the reins of power to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I will declare myself unreliable and go away. But it will not happen that way, for God has appointed that this be a sign to you to fortify you to trust Him and choose the ordinary way to follow Him through the most frightening year for the globe in history. I appeal to you to quit trying to flatter yourself that you have figured out how God is going to accomplish this, for that way leads to destruction. Trust Him and follow Him whatever happens. I have told you true."

This man has returned to his cult and is dangerous. He really needs prayers, if not deliverance. The Archdiocese warned us. Please heed that warning!

Abortion Stops a Beating Heart

Contact

Translate/Traducir

Obedience to the Church

"Why do you talk to me as if I am so far away? I am very near....in your heart.""Ask Me for love. Ask Me; I am burning with desire to give it to you""Talk to Me. For Me there is no sweeter prayer"-Words of our Lord to Gabrielle Bossis.